Many progressives have become involved in the Obama campaign, because they make him out to be a charismatic leader with the potential to unite the nation and restore the American dream after what they perceive as years of disenfranchisement. Because his speeches reach beyond class, race, religion, or other factors that usually foster divisiveness, these progressives feel connected once again –as a people and as participants in the political game. As it sweeps through, this wave of energy could transform the nation, but only if sustainable in the long run. Which is why one needs to question how the dedicated campaigners will react if their dream gets shattered. Will they go home and start business as usual until the next charismatic leader comes along, if that were to happen again? Doesn’t it denote a rather immature stance for a people to believe that they can only be rescued by a powerful and compelling figure backed by corporate money?
There is a tendency for American politics to be fixated on such a vertical model because it doesn’t require taking responsibility for community building, a very challenging proposition for a nation based on rugged individualism and theoretically rooted in meritocracy. This propensity is in fact shared by many radicals outside the Obama campaign, such as advocates of non-violent resistance who promote acts of civil disobedience when it is clear that a vast majority of law-abiding citizens are not ready to join in with such tactics. Again, there is a tendency to agitate from the top down, touting indefatigable activists as heroes and challenging others to emulate their self-sacrificial actions. When I heard a friend who had already spent about 5 years in federal prison for nonviolent civil disobedience over the years declare: “What I have done is not enough’, I concurred in principle. Indeed, in view of abhorrent policies and of the lives affected by them, nothing can be deemed sufficient. On the other hand, are others inspired to go and spend months in jail because of his statements? Not really, even if they devote a fair amount of time and energy to speaking out against the same policies. In order to convince us that civil disobedience is the definitive tool for change, the likes of Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi are brought to the forefront. Again, beyond making some of us recoil with guilt, this type of rhetoric carries little impact on the wider public. As an average white woman, I find it difficult to identify with such extraordinary men. Both of them experienced racism in their life, while I never did. I have been on the receiving end of sexism, however, which for me translates into an immediate feeling of community with women anywhere on the planet, leading me to work on women’s rights rather than model my behavior after these exceptional men.
Only with a firm basis can a campaign take root and produce good yield. When there is community on the ground, one skilled and inspiring leader can then be the spark that ignites and carries the situation to new heights, as did Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., in contrast with a few activists being heralded as heroes amidst the status quo. The hero is a product of our individualistic culture. He confronts the powers that be head on, even on his own if necessary. With a community base, the powers that be can be challenged on many different levels. In fact, civil disobedience advocates are aware that it is a requirement, which is why they train people to first get together in affinity groups. The affinity group is the shortcut found when community building on a grander scale has not been effective, and the populace is not showing up en masse to resist. Also, being a priest, my friend was supported by his community of faith whenever he faced arrest and incarceration. This doesn’t detract from his extraordinary courage, but sets the ground for such actions. So the truth is that the horizontal approach, despite requiring extra work and time, ought to be considered the pre-requisite for any effective campaign. The Latinos who walked out on their jobs one May Day were united owing to their heritage and the adverse conditions they had been enduring, just like the young African Americans who occupied the lunch counters in the sixties were united because of segregation.
In the past few years much movement building has taken place over the Internet, a wonderful tool with severe limitations. Because it pre-supposes the use of expensive technology, it generally targets more affluent segments of the population. What it accomplishes also differs from real life encounters, which foster dialogue, and the sharing of skills and work. Dialogue means vulnerability to another’s point of view, and real life participation offers the opportunity to empathize with another’s plight, often leading to new alliances and commitments. Many who went to New Orleans and got their hands dirty after Katrina found this out. When the long and painstaking process of community building has been tackled first, it becomes possible to tap into the group’s creative voices, a healthy departure from simply witnessing what appears to be the reactive stance of a few morally superior individuals. It also becomes possible for a movement to endure in the event of failed leadership. That is why I like to ask Obama supporters what they have been doing to fulfill their dream of unity during the past five or ten years in regards to the issues addressed in his speeches, such as the healthcare gap, immigration, veterans issues, Katrina, etc…. And, more importantly, what they will be ready to do in order to fulfill it in the future (beyond supporting the movement at a time when the momentum and hopes are high), since without a true people’s movement behind it, or rather ahead of it, government rarely enacts legislation that truly benefits the people and the planet. In the end it appears more crucial than ever to reflect on what defines such a movement, to exchange perspectives on what inspires us to mobilize and create alliances, and to design long-term strategies that we shall be able to draw on, regardless of what tomorrow’s political climate might look like.