Where (Oh, Where?) Will All the Obama Supporters Go?
December 9, 2008 by Julia King
Here in freshly Blue Indiana, Obama supporters are doing what Obama supporters are doing everywhere. We are trying to figure out how to best capitalize on our success. So last week, a handful of local dynamos who helped put Indiana on the political map invited area residents to a brainstorming meeting at the public library.
There were jumbo-sized papers taped to the walls and magic markers and a room full of people eager to “organize for change” as the invitation had said. The attendees that night were probably much like attendees at other Obama-inspired meetings across the country: a longtime mayor, a city council person here and there, the head of the local Democratic Party… and plenty of people still new to the political scene, many of them initiated into the democratic process during the 2008 presidential campaign.
In no time, fat, colorful words were scrawled on the newsprint: “health care,” “war,” “education,” “environment,” along with the categories, “local,” “state,” “national,” “international.” There was even a list of ideas for specific service projects (something the Obama campaign is encouraging, clearly as a means to keep the energy and newly forged political relationships alive until he gets into the White House). There was talk of possible monthly meetings, of leadership within the group, of civic education. Finally, there was a paper with the heading, “Organizational Structure,” or something to that effect. This meant that when all the ideas were put into words (even spelled correctly, which truly says something about the caliber of the people running the meeting), there was still one enormous question remaining: HOW?
If you are an idealistic sap (like me) you’ve been in a room like this before, one crackling with human electricity, full of capable people and good intentions. And if you’ve been in a room like this before, you’ve encountered the question sitting in the middle of the room, the question of HOW.
How do we usher in this change? Real change? You know, Change We Can Believe In?
We could begin by acknowledging that if it was very, very simple (like taking a nap or eating ice-cream), we probably would have done it by now. The fact is that creating significant societal change is much more like trying to cook a butternut squash in the toaster.
The beauty of Barack Obama’s campaign was that it (he) inspired and attracted new and unusual voters to the political process. People who never dreamed they would do such things wrote letters to newspapers, knocked on doors, and made phone calls for a candidate, actually spoke aloud about… politics. The catch is, now that the election is over many of them are reverting to their old ways, hesitant once again to embrace a system they see as inherently dirty (or at the very least, broken). Some of them prefer the speed and flexibility of small-scale, private sector projects and others prefer the safety and intimacy of congregational life to the rough and tumble nature of political parties. And the real rabble rousers root for the Ralph Nader route (why couldn’t his last name be “Rader”?), an end of the two-party system.
In this small community, it’s easy to catch bits and pieces of conversations – and even e-mails – that weren’t necessarily intended to be public. It’s easy to know that some people are talking (and typing) in favor of serious change, but against involvement in “politics.” I’m not sure exactly what that means, but I think it means that things go back to the way they were before we elected the first African-American president, with each of us flitting about in our separate-but-equal realms doing what feels good.
Somewhere along the way Americans took the word “politics” and rolled it and squeezed it until it turned into an unrecognizably small thing, sort of like what children do to slices of white bread. Then we put it in a box and closed the lid.
“Oh, I’m not interested in politics,” is both a familiar and popular American refrain, but one that never ceases to surprise me, particularly after 8 years of George W. Bush, two wars, a flailing economy, soaring education and healthcare costs. Is there really a way to work through any of these problems without an interest in “politics”? Politics is about power and influence. It’s about keeping watch over our elected officials, about encouraging the good ones and putting road blocks up when the bad ones go astray. It’s about local government budgets and state budgets and national budgets, about police and firefighters, the justice system, about school boards and what’s served in our kids’ cafeterias, about pot holes and bike paths and traffic and literally anything you can think of. To claim a disinterest in politics is to claim general disinterest in the human condition. Staying out helps no one but your ideological adversaries.
So, where to from here? What sort of structure could provide a place to explore and pursue varied interests, but also nurture a shared sense of purpose? How can we duplicate our Obama success and move toward the ideals that inspired us in the first place?
We can make something all our own, something from scratch (like anchovy cookies with mint icing – no one’s done THAT before), or we can follow in the footsteps of a grassroots community organizer turned leader of the free world. He knew what many of us still need to learn, that sometimes the most radical place to be is smack in the middle of the establishment. The point is that big change takes a big organization. And, seriously, how does one clean a house from the outside? If we pack up all this energy, all our brilliant ideas and our commitment to social change and to hard work… we can transform the Democratic Party (unless someone thinks it would be easier to change the Republican Party).
Comments
7 Responses to “Where (Oh, Where?) Will All the Obama Supporters Go?”
Comments welcome. If you'd like to be notified of follow-up comments on this post, submit your email address and check the box at the bottom of the page.
I appreciate what you have to say, but I’m a little put off by the tongue in cheek rhetoric against those of us who want to keep politics out of this process.
Here, I am differentiating between politics and civil engagement. Civil engagement is what I assume that you mean by ‘ It’s about keeping watch over our elected officials, about encouraging the good ones and putting road blocks up when the bad ones go astray. It’s about local government budgets and state budgets and national budgets, about police and firefighters, the justice system, about school boards and what’s served in our kids’ cafeterias, about pot holes and bike paths and traffic and literally anything you can think of. ‘
None of those are political issues – they don’t belong to democrats or republicans – they are social welfare issues. Politicians of either or any persuasion can care deeply about any of those issues and be effective in their leadership.
The extremes, on both sides, muck up the issues – they politicize them – and the common ground is lost. And then you are just left with a bar fight.
I have a republican city council person and a democratic mayor. Do you think that if I appealled to the mayor by saying ‘I have a pothole in front of my house and I know that only you, because you are a democrat, can help me’ I would get very far?
No, I have to assume that they both represent me regardless of their politics. I have to say that both are responsible for my pothole because they both set the agenda for my neighborhood.
I am a left leaning independent and I don’t plan to shut anybody out because of politics. This is why I would like to keep politics out of civic engagement.
Your blogs are fun to read. They’re provocative and well-written – a powerful combination.
I agree with your main points:
- Politics (understood correctly as well as more broadly than just political party activity) is not a bad, dirty enterprise, but something all – except maybe hermits — should involve themselves with.
- Effective political change isn’t done by individuals; it comes from people working together, maximizing their influence and power.
And because I know you mean it when you say you welcome differing views, I’ll quibble (just for fun) with some minor points:
- You say you don’t know what it means when people say they’re against involvement in politics but then take a guess at what they mean. My guess would be different than yours. I think many are saying they’re hesitant to invest primary energy in the structure of either of the two political parties [more about that below].
- You say some don’t want the “rough and tumble” of politics and so revert to “the safety and intimacy of congregational life.” This sentence, it seems to me, could only be written by one who is largely an outsider to most congregational lives.
But mostly, I’m an ally in your call to redeem politics (I wrote an article a few years ago challenging a well publicized call by one within my denomination for Mennonites to take a “sabbatical” from politics – I argued that the opposite is true; we need to get more – not less — involved in politics).
At the very end of your blog you argue that we should invest our energy in the Democratic Party (like Obama did) and transform it. If I read you correctly, you’re mostly making an “effectiveness” argument; i.e. it’s the party that has the established organization & the infrastructure, so that’s the field we should play on if we’re to really make a difference. Everything else makes as much sense as anchovy cookies.
Your case for building a strong, transformed Democratic party is an important one, and I don’t think you’re wrong. But I also don’t think it’s the only path toward effectiveness. I’ll just throw out a few points:
- The first is a minor point, but my observation is that the Elkhart County Obama movement (which was quite successful in effectuating change) seemed to happened largely outside the local party apparatus.
- But more importantly, my sense is that successful change movements are largely driven by coalitions rather than driven by political parties (although strong parties are often an important part of the coalition). That’s why I lean toward finding ways for the various progressive groups in Elkhart County to be in touch with each other and know each other rather than think the answer lies in all of us joining one of the groups (the Dem. Party).
- And practically speaking, I’m just not sure what I hear you calling for will happen. There are many in the local Obama effort that just aren’t enthusiastic about political party work. It’s not in their blood and it doesn’t resonate with their images of how effective change happens. Their juices flow in other arenas. So, rather than argue that those people aren’t serious about change, I’d like to find avenues for enhancing potential progressive bridge-building, coalition-making, and joint efforts in the future.
Back in the ‘90s, I heard a labor organizer tell a room full of health care advocates, representing dozens of different organizations and advocacy groups, that at the end of this conference we had two choices. We could all go back to our little communities and pull on our little ropes for change, OR — if we were serious about effecting change — we could find ways to all pull on one big rope together. That image stuck with me (maybe because I’m a guy). I note that he didn’t say the only way to do this is to all work within the labor movement or all work within the Democratic Party establishment (even though either would be fine). Rather we have to find ways, from within the various organizations and venues that motivate us, to work together when we can.
Karl – That was really well said.
Julia – I really appreciate your passions!
With that said, I think that it is really important to bring people together from various view points to affect change. I think that inserting either party into community actions disenfranchises others who may differ on other points but who care about whatever point is being addressed.
I would shy away from something that were simply a democrat thing – say, schools. Although I disagree with current approaches to schools and I believe those approaches are largely ‘republican’ bent, I would not naturally be drawn to an approach that was ‘democratic’ bent. In fact, I would not get involved.
I think that many people are like me on this issue. If the sides of the issue were presented, I would most likely side with the democratic side.
I hope that this makes sense.
Thanks Julia for your comments and well written thoughts. I missed that meeting and would have liked to have been a part of the attempt to finally seek growth with the Democratic Party of Elkhart County.
Having said that, there is no mention of the climate in where we live. We have a Republican newspaper surrounded by right only talking radio. It would be hard to transform the average Joe to think left with all that is hitting him everyday by Elkhart County’s right only media. Until we can convince WTRC and Talk Radio 960 or any other radio who would go outside the box to have programming from the left view point, I see no amount of difference within the community in changing from Republican to Democrat. We haven’t had a Democrat elected to any Elkhart County office in many years. I see no change in that until we too can share the airwaves and have our voices heard along side of those from the right.
Hello, All. I’m enjoying reading all these great comments. Thanks for taking the time.
Kalaine – I agree entirely that Republicans are capable of (and willing to) fill my potholes. I did not intend to suggest that we appeal to politicians as Democrats and/or Republicans in the filling of potholes, etc. My point was that ultimately everything is political (including potholes and schools) because the decisions surrounding those things are made by politicians and governments.
I hear in your comments a serious discomfort with political labels and I can respect and appreciate that. I share that trait when it comes to religion, so I fully understand the hesitancy to embrace labels or organizations that just don’t feel right. For whatever it’s worth, I am not a party loyalist, meaning I am not wed to the term “Democrat.” If a Republican ran espousing the same values Obama espoused (and had a record that proved an adherence to those values), I would gladly vote for a Republican.
As for the notion that party affiliation will keep some people out; that’s probably true. But it’s also true that some will stay out no matter what the approach.
My hope is that all of us who came together to work for Obama are willing to bring some internal flexibility to the “next step” process. As we plan for all this change we want to see “out there,” it seems only fair that we also explore the possibility of change from within. This is an opportunity to stretch ourselves (I include myself here). What are our reasons for resisting certain structures or affiliations? Are they fully reasonable? Can we articulate them so that others can understand? Can we get there together?
Thanks, Julia for getting this conversation going.
Where will the Obama supporters go?
One of the things that attracted me to Obama was his willingness to not just focus on short term solutions but to look at the longer range implicaitons. With ten years of experience in community development in places like Haiti, India and Cambodia, I have seen those people and agencies who with good intentions come in and support a local project for the quick results that can be reported to their constituency. Invariably when the outside support stopped the project withered and died.
So I feel the need for sustainable development. How does that apply to the coming days with new opportunities under a new administration?
I suggest that even in our local area as we look for ways to improve life in the short term we keep in mind the longer term goals of sustainability.
In that regard, I have long been bothered by the reliance for the health of our enconomy on consumerism that relies on consumption and built-in obsolescence of manufactured goods.
Obama’s plan for creating green-related jobs is a step in the right direction.
There must be local applications fo this principle of considering the long term sustainability along side of improving life for all of us. In this regard, check out http://www.rprogress.org/sustainability_indicators/presidential_essay.html#develop for ideas and motivation. GEM
I like your focus on sustainability, Glen. You are absolutely right.