Friday
Feb082008
An Important Reminder Of Why I Support Obama - Empowerment
Friday, February 8, 2008 at 13:37
cross posted to Jack & Jill Politics (warning, this post is massive. grab a cup of tea and settle in).
Over the past month, I have gotten more involved with and attentive to parts of presidential politics than at any previous point in my life. Following and, increasingly, participating in the Obama campaign has become a third or fourth job. My conversations, my blog posts, my leisure reading, my dreams -- all have been gripped by the extreme gravitational pull of this season. As votes began to be cast, I have reached out to friends and strangers alike, attempting to get them to see what I saw (I'm headed to DC this weekend to campaign). As the Clintons attacked recklessly, I grew more adamant in my defense of Obama and promotion of his campaign.
There is a cost to all of this, and on the periphery of my consciousness I hear the voices of accountability calling out my name. It's time for me to take a step back, to remind others but mostly myself, why I support his campaign. Here's why I feel the need to do this.
First, a few weeks ago, I tuned in to Democracy Now and caught Glen Ford and Michael Eric Dyson engaged in one of the most fascinating discussions of Obama's candidacy I've yet heard. It was wide-ranging, touching on the legitimacy of a term such as "post-racial" and the moneyed interests that capture all high-flying politicians. Glen is with Black Agenda Report, and they have what appears to be no love lost for Senator Obama. I don't agree with their strong stance against him, but I cannot deny the importance of many questions they raise. In this interview, Ford asked, "What good does it do to put a black face on American imperialism?" Let that one ring in your head, and as fellow new media brotha, Clarence Smith Jr., would say, "marinate."
Another moment occurred on that same, annoyingly insightful program, Democracy Now. Amy Goodman hosted a discussion with the head of the Progressive Democrats of America, a writer from Black Commentator and several others. Most supported Obama but they did so because he represented the best chance for movement politics to gain a closer and stronger foothold to real power in this country. While supporting Obama, they also wanted to push him further on issues such as reduced funding for the military (I agree) or an even more aggressive health care proposal (I admire the rational choice foundation of O's current plan just the way it is).
Finally, what really grabbed my attention was an old friend of my mother's in DC. Several weeks ago, she reached out to me saying she wasn't convinced about Obama but was open to hearing more. This week, I got in touch and heard her concerns. A few of them had ready answers (e.g. Q: what are his criminal justice proposals? A: here they are as part of his poverty plan), but one struck at the heart of this entire presidential election drama. "Who does he owe?" she asked me. "Before he started getting money from citizens, somebody chose him and saw potential and decided he could be president. I just want to know what he compromised to get to where he is."
Aye, there's the rub.
Now I don't think there was a secret back room meeting between Obama and the Five Philandering Families at a secret retreat off the Cayman Islands, but my friend was raising a larger point. It is nearly, if not completely, impossible to be taken as seriously as Obama is being taken without having had to cut deals or ignore controversies or take money from some shady (most likely economic) interests. You don't become president without being sat down and told what the real deal is by those whose power and influence pre-dates your arrival and outlasts your departure. Those of us here on the ground level of society have the luxury of not being bombarded by such pressures. I'm convinced that if Dennis Kucinich ever did become president, he would be sat down on Day One and presented with an envelope. He'd open it, and he'd simply say, "Ooooooh. Now I see. Let us commence the bombing." I'm only half-kidding.
But back to the legitimate question: who does Obama owe?
It's not too hard to find out. The short answer is Wall Street employees and execs. OpenSecrets analyzes FEC filings and compiles easy-to-read reports. It's true that Obama relies much less on large scale contributions than does Hillary. However, Obama's top contributors are those at investment banks like Goldman Sachs ($400K), UBS ($300K) and Lehman Brothers ($250K). You'll remember that Goldman made a killing off the subprime crisis as it ripped apart the bottom lines of other banks and the financial assets of so many Americans. (Here's Clinton's for comparison).
Another noteworthy contributor is a (primarily) nuclear power company named Exelon. The NY Times ran a hard piece about Obama recently for what looks like him watering down an enforcement bill that would have affected this company. Obama also sees nuclear as a necessary component of our energy mix, a point many strongly disagree with (as a self-studied peak oil nut, I too see a role for nuclear).
Hillary Clinton shares some of this influence and often leads Obama. McClatchy covers how Wall Street has made it rain on both their campaign coffers. Bob Sheer of Truthdig concludes that neither Hillary nor Barack are demanding a needed reduction in America's insane levels of military spending, writing:
Having been exposed to the high altitude of political power far longer, Hillary has many of her own distinct crosses to bear. She's the top recipient of money from the weapons industry among Republicans or Democrats (yes, war profiteers!), and she refused to vote for a ban on those horrific devices of arbitrary destruction known as land mines and cluster bombs -- even in the topsy turvy world of Senate votes and back room deals, this vote looks unforgivable.
I happen to think Clinton's real and perceived concessions to those sucking the lifeblood out of our democracy are more egregious than Obama's, but the point remains that neither's hands are truly clean. By definition, a successful politician has some dirt on his or her hands. I do think, however, that Michelle Obama's point is relevant. The Obama's are much closer to normal than the Clintons. They haven't had their norms so stewed for as long by access to the moneyed people of the world.
So, let's take it as a given than in joining ranks of the League of Potential Presidents, Obama has made some compromises and has the appearance of many more. He has accepted money from people in the financial services industry which wields US policy like a market-fixing bludgeon, or from a nuclear power company interested in avoiding as much government regulation as possible. Why, again, do I support him and why, so much moreso than Clinton?
I return to my original endorsement letter of Jan 3, 2008
I will add to that.
My support of Obama goes beyond him and perhaps eventually even against him. My support is based on his ability to activate the civic gene in many more Americans. His effect is undeniable (though unproven in the long term), for look at the vastly different types of people he is getting to pay attention and turn out for rallies and turn out to vote! Yes, Obama is a politician. Yes he is and will be beholden to financial interests. But you cannot tell me that "any ol politician" gets old white Republicans and young feminists to be enthusiastic about the prospect of voting for them.
If he is even partially successful, he may create an electorate so constructively engaged and, yes, pissed off, that it pushes him even beyond his current proposals. Presidents are under an immense amount of pressure, and as any politician climbs the ladder, their world shrinks as access to the average citizen gets replaced by access to the captains of industry. But, if Obama's campaign is successful, it will be because we are successful, and if that happens, I envision a country in which people are more engaged in their government and society and thus check the power of those who already have unfettered access. I know the power of this inspiration because it has touched me and made me committed to seeing it happen in my small sphere of influence.
If his revolutionary open government and technology plan and government ethics plan (for the love of god, read it!) comes to pass, we will have more visibility and input into the (corrupt) workings of our government than ever before, and it will be up to us to act on that new information. (BTW, compare that to this assessment of Hillary's tech/communications plan. It pales). With the searchable government spending database he spearheaded (use it!), we may find that the obscenity of our budgetary priorities is so readily available, we have no choice but to protest it.
Obama's platform is not just about his positions. It's about the tools and infrastructure he's offering directly to the citizens of this country. Forget for a moment who speaks in a most commanding fashion about the particulars of health care legislation. Forget about beautiful language or alleged experience. Look at what President Obama offers all of us: empowerment. Empowerment like we've never seen. Power we forgot we had. Power that a community organizer trained on the streets of Chicago would recognize in a heartbeat. We may not get an opportunity like this for several decades!
Look, I am under no illusions about the forces that wield the true power in this country, but what has been restored by Obama's campaign is my faith (and go ahead, say it, "hope") and knowledge that true power is still held by the people, and that we the people can use more of that power under President Obama than under any other. By far.
On Super Tuesday, amid a speech full of language we've heard from him before, Obama spoke words that leapt out at me. He said, "we are the ones we've been waiting for."
Let us remember that, and let's use this campaign, this time in our history, this great opportunity to be the ones we've been waiting for.
Over the past month, I have gotten more involved with and attentive to parts of presidential politics than at any previous point in my life. Following and, increasingly, participating in the Obama campaign has become a third or fourth job. My conversations, my blog posts, my leisure reading, my dreams -- all have been gripped by the extreme gravitational pull of this season. As votes began to be cast, I have reached out to friends and strangers alike, attempting to get them to see what I saw (I'm headed to DC this weekend to campaign). As the Clintons attacked recklessly, I grew more adamant in my defense of Obama and promotion of his campaign.
There is a cost to all of this, and on the periphery of my consciousness I hear the voices of accountability calling out my name. It's time for me to take a step back, to remind others but mostly myself, why I support his campaign. Here's why I feel the need to do this.
First, a few weeks ago, I tuned in to Democracy Now and caught Glen Ford and Michael Eric Dyson engaged in one of the most fascinating discussions of Obama's candidacy I've yet heard. It was wide-ranging, touching on the legitimacy of a term such as "post-racial" and the moneyed interests that capture all high-flying politicians. Glen is with Black Agenda Report, and they have what appears to be no love lost for Senator Obama. I don't agree with their strong stance against him, but I cannot deny the importance of many questions they raise. In this interview, Ford asked, "What good does it do to put a black face on American imperialism?" Let that one ring in your head, and as fellow new media brotha, Clarence Smith Jr., would say, "marinate."
Another moment occurred on that same, annoyingly insightful program, Democracy Now. Amy Goodman hosted a discussion with the head of the Progressive Democrats of America, a writer from Black Commentator and several others. Most supported Obama but they did so because he represented the best chance for movement politics to gain a closer and stronger foothold to real power in this country. While supporting Obama, they also wanted to push him further on issues such as reduced funding for the military (I agree) or an even more aggressive health care proposal (I admire the rational choice foundation of O's current plan just the way it is).
Finally, what really grabbed my attention was an old friend of my mother's in DC. Several weeks ago, she reached out to me saying she wasn't convinced about Obama but was open to hearing more. This week, I got in touch and heard her concerns. A few of them had ready answers (e.g. Q: what are his criminal justice proposals? A: here they are as part of his poverty plan), but one struck at the heart of this entire presidential election drama. "Who does he owe?" she asked me. "Before he started getting money from citizens, somebody chose him and saw potential and decided he could be president. I just want to know what he compromised to get to where he is."
Aye, there's the rub.
Now I don't think there was a secret back room meeting between Obama and the Five Philandering Families at a secret retreat off the Cayman Islands, but my friend was raising a larger point. It is nearly, if not completely, impossible to be taken as seriously as Obama is being taken without having had to cut deals or ignore controversies or take money from some shady (most likely economic) interests. You don't become president without being sat down and told what the real deal is by those whose power and influence pre-dates your arrival and outlasts your departure. Those of us here on the ground level of society have the luxury of not being bombarded by such pressures. I'm convinced that if Dennis Kucinich ever did become president, he would be sat down on Day One and presented with an envelope. He'd open it, and he'd simply say, "Ooooooh. Now I see. Let us commence the bombing." I'm only half-kidding.
But back to the legitimate question: who does Obama owe?
It's not too hard to find out. The short answer is Wall Street employees and execs. OpenSecrets analyzes FEC filings and compiles easy-to-read reports. It's true that Obama relies much less on large scale contributions than does Hillary. However, Obama's top contributors are those at investment banks like Goldman Sachs ($400K), UBS ($300K) and Lehman Brothers ($250K). You'll remember that Goldman made a killing off the subprime crisis as it ripped apart the bottom lines of other banks and the financial assets of so many Americans. (Here's Clinton's for comparison).
Another noteworthy contributor is a (primarily) nuclear power company named Exelon. The NY Times ran a hard piece about Obama recently for what looks like him watering down an enforcement bill that would have affected this company. Obama also sees nuclear as a necessary component of our energy mix, a point many strongly disagree with (as a self-studied peak oil nut, I too see a role for nuclear).
Hillary Clinton shares some of this influence and often leads Obama. McClatchy covers how Wall Street has made it rain on both their campaign coffers. Bob Sheer of Truthdig concludes that neither Hillary nor Barack are demanding a needed reduction in America's insane levels of military spending, writing:
Which one of the likely winners from either party would lead the battle
to cut the military budget, and where would the winner find support in
Congress? Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have treated the
military budget as sacrosanct with their Senate votes and their
campaign rhetoric. Clinton is particularly clear on the record as
favoring spending more, not less, on the military.
Having been exposed to the high altitude of political power far longer, Hillary has many of her own distinct crosses to bear. She's the top recipient of money from the weapons industry among Republicans or Democrats (yes, war profiteers!), and she refused to vote for a ban on those horrific devices of arbitrary destruction known as land mines and cluster bombs -- even in the topsy turvy world of Senate votes and back room deals, this vote looks unforgivable.
I happen to think Clinton's real and perceived concessions to those sucking the lifeblood out of our democracy are more egregious than Obama's, but the point remains that neither's hands are truly clean. By definition, a successful politician has some dirt on his or her hands. I do think, however, that Michelle Obama's point is relevant. The Obama's are much closer to normal than the Clintons. They haven't had their norms so stewed for as long by access to the moneyed people of the world.
So, let's take it as a given than in joining ranks of the League of Potential Presidents, Obama has made some compromises and has the appearance of many more. He has accepted money from people in the financial services industry which wields US policy like a market-fixing bludgeon, or from a nuclear power company interested in avoiding as much government regulation as possible. Why, again, do I support him and why, so much moreso than Clinton?
I return to my original endorsement letter of Jan 3, 2008
Obama is neither a Magic Negro nor a messiah. He is not Martin Luther King Jr. nor is he Sojourner Truth. He cannot change this country and make it all the great things so many people want it to be on his own. No politician can. No single person can. Anyone who promises that cannot deliver it. What I hope and increasingly believe, however, is that his ability to connect with people, to inspire participation, to transcend some of the more obscene flavors of recent partisanship will encourage us to take a step closer to fixing this country ourselves.
It says something powerful when you have the largest pool of small campaign donors in the history of presidential elections. It says something powerful when you can lure 30,000 ordinary people to a political rally, especially when you do so in a country whose leader doesn’t wear fatigues or put his image on the nation’s money.
If President Obama can accomplish two or three of the changes that candidate Obama has laid out, that would be a vast improvement for the country. But what I’m really rooting for is that he will help rekindle that spirit of civic engagement and community that is the lifeblood of this experiment called democracy. In the end, it’s not about Obama. It’s about us!
I will add to that.
My support of Obama goes beyond him and perhaps eventually even against him. My support is based on his ability to activate the civic gene in many more Americans. His effect is undeniable (though unproven in the long term), for look at the vastly different types of people he is getting to pay attention and turn out for rallies and turn out to vote! Yes, Obama is a politician. Yes he is and will be beholden to financial interests. But you cannot tell me that "any ol politician" gets old white Republicans and young feminists to be enthusiastic about the prospect of voting for them.
If he is even partially successful, he may create an electorate so constructively engaged and, yes, pissed off, that it pushes him even beyond his current proposals. Presidents are under an immense amount of pressure, and as any politician climbs the ladder, their world shrinks as access to the average citizen gets replaced by access to the captains of industry. But, if Obama's campaign is successful, it will be because we are successful, and if that happens, I envision a country in which people are more engaged in their government and society and thus check the power of those who already have unfettered access. I know the power of this inspiration because it has touched me and made me committed to seeing it happen in my small sphere of influence.
If his revolutionary open government and technology plan and government ethics plan (for the love of god, read it!) comes to pass, we will have more visibility and input into the (corrupt) workings of our government than ever before, and it will be up to us to act on that new information. (BTW, compare that to this assessment of Hillary's tech/communications plan. It pales). With the searchable government spending database he spearheaded (use it!), we may find that the obscenity of our budgetary priorities is so readily available, we have no choice but to protest it.
Obama's platform is not just about his positions. It's about the tools and infrastructure he's offering directly to the citizens of this country. Forget for a moment who speaks in a most commanding fashion about the particulars of health care legislation. Forget about beautiful language or alleged experience. Look at what President Obama offers all of us: empowerment. Empowerment like we've never seen. Power we forgot we had. Power that a community organizer trained on the streets of Chicago would recognize in a heartbeat. We may not get an opportunity like this for several decades!
Look, I am under no illusions about the forces that wield the true power in this country, but what has been restored by Obama's campaign is my faith (and go ahead, say it, "hope") and knowledge that true power is still held by the people, and that we the people can use more of that power under President Obama than under any other. By far.
On Super Tuesday, amid a speech full of language we've heard from him before, Obama spoke words that leapt out at me. He said, "we are the ones we've been waiting for."
Let us remember that, and let's use this campaign, this time in our history, this great opportunity to be the ones we've been waiting for.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (8)
You have expressed so eloquently my exact feelings about Obama. He is not the 2nd coming nor is he the solution to the world's problem's. I think alot of people who criticize Obama supporters get this very fact wrong. We are not children to be lead by the hand blindly.
The political game is complex and involves one hand washing the other. If anyone thinks that it doesn't, then they are naive. If anyone thinks that Obama doesn't operate in those parameters, then they don't get it.
I'm tired of voting against eveything. It's exhausting. I've spent the past 8 years pissed off and angry. I want to be FOR something again. Obama is it in all his imperfection. He has to operate within the system. He knows it. He wants to win. Period.
He is the beginning, not the end. He is a step in a series of steps for not just Black America, but America period. When you talk about his candidacy inspiring civic action and participation in a way not seen in a long time, you are spot on. Maybe that is THE most important part of his presence in this election.
Keep on speaking your passion and truth. There are those of us who hear it.
Tell you one thing, she makes America look good. http://rawdawgb.blogspot.com/2008/01/he-has-coretta.html" rel="nofollow">he has a Coretta.
"There's a cost to all of this." You're telling me! I've taken at least 8 days off work and have been consumed every spare minute I have trawling for garbage data off any site I can find.
Re: who contributes. It's well known that the bigwigs make sure to fund both sides of any fight, because it's too risky to be on the losing side. That's how the Dems were still surviving during the dark days of W. The K Street project was doomed to fail because corporate lobbyists are too smart to believe in a permanent majority. Of course Obama's taking money from the rich and powerful. Your boy in Philly is already an aspiring bundler.
I'm not sure if you know Zephyr Teachout -- former online organizer, now law professor -- but check out her HuffPost about the campaign returning her contribution because she's a registered lobbyist.
Anyway, all that aside. You're right on when you write, "My support of Obama goes beyond him and perhaps eventually even against him. My support is based on his ability to activate the civic gene in many more Americans." This is exactly what has gotten so many hard-core community organizers behind Obama. My former teacher and mentor to many Obama (and some Clinton) organizers, Marshall Ganz, is supporting him for exacty that reason. A possibility of movement politics. Which is not the same as what has passed for "organizing" in the past few decades. Alinksy-style, interest-based organizing has reached the limits of what it can accomplish. Every few decades we need wholesale renewal, not of our interests, but of our values.
The current political climate tells us that we are all individuals and that the genius of America lies in our ability to do good by pursuing our individual interests. There is truth in that, and that truth drove Reagan to the White House in 1980, together with the desire/fear to win the Cold War. But like any ideology, that one has run its course and has become pathological.
There is a need to recognize that government can be part of the solution, not just an obstacle. (Even Bush acknowledged that today in TN). Because government isn't some faceless third party -- it's the embodiment of our collective desire to be a society together, to uplift each other. Virginia and Massachusetts call it a "commonwealth." It's the idea that patriotism means sacrifice for your fellow citizen. And Obama is the only candidate who regularly uses "sacrifice" in his stump speeches.
You write, "My support of Obama goes beyond him and perhaps eventually even against him." That, I think, is also right. Every successful movement eventually slows, stops, and becomes the new Establishment for the next wave to overthrow. So I have no doubt that, 10 or 20 years from now, we'll either be the Old Guard that the youth rail against, or be revolting from within. That's the way of things, as Hindus recognize in the deity figure Shiva (who clears the way for renewal). But in this moment, right now, our new story has not even begun to be told. It's to early to look forward and see the dim outline of our eventual disillusionment.
That's what the fierce urgency of now is about. Idealism and the will and vigor to change comes only in flashes. If you blink and miss the lightening, you won't get another chance for a long, long time.
Dear Baratunde,
Your thoughts and the comments below it are what the whole world should see. Please keep spreading your word. Yes we can!
I get incensed when people reduce this to a race of a black man and a white woman. That has sooooo nothing to do with it
Signed: An ex HRC supporter who now has her priorities straight!
I fail to understand why there is no vocal outrage that the super delegates in the democratic party is anti-democratic and that these individuals can kill the will of the people. This is a secretive organization and should be exposed as totally anti-democratic.
if we are all democratic why do not voice our opposition to the super delegate concept in the democratic party!
About 10 years about I would have been excited about Obama's "movement" politics. I'm not jaded, but I've seen firsthand the consequences of what happens when people go along with a campaign just because it's a campaign. That seems to be the core of Obama's message: the campaign itself is the story. That's not good enough for me anymore. I want to know where a campaign stands on the issues. And Obama's stands continue to disappoint me. Also, his attack on McCain was pretty lame. That's all you got, Senator O?
That said, I think the concerns about who Obama owes are somewhat overblown. Cornel West made the same criticisms of Obama a year ago (you can find it here at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXj3_pjTTwg). I thought it was below the belt, seriously--the reason Obama wasn't at that conference was that he was launching his damn campaign! Interests are part of the political game, and that won't change, no matter how "engaged" we all become in politics. I think West was really unfair--and now he's rushing to endorse Obama, without so much as a decent apology, which is rather hypocritical. Enough said about that.
I'm not cynical about the possibilities of political engagement. I think politics is rewarding. But one thing I've learned, after several years in the political game, is that politics isn't everything. And thank God. What we need politics to do is make it easier for people to pursue their dreams. That means politics needs to get the hell out of the way most of the time. I'm more than skeptical of Obama's "movement" politics. I'm suspicious of it, because he's basically asking people to write him a blank check. We don't know who he really is--and he spends most of his book telling us that he doesn't really know, either. I'm less worried about who he owes and more concerned about what he actually believes.
Thank you for this post. You express eloquently EXACTLY how I feel as well. This campaign is the first time I have ever 1) donated to a political campaign, 2) voted in a primary, 3) volunteered (phonebanking) in a political campaign. Pretty much most of my attention, free time, and non-free time in the past few weeks has been taken up with an obsessive googling of the news, reading of online discussion posts and blogs, and listening to analysis on NPR.
Obama is not the panacea to America's or the world's problems, but the grassroots level organization that he has inspired is the beginning of taking this country in a more positive and more engaged direction. I'm grateful to him for restoring my sense of civic duty, making me realize that THIS is what politics SHOULD be like, and restoring my hope for this generation. Frantz Fanon has said "each generation must, out of relative obscurity, discover its mission, fulfil it or betray it." While most Americans might not be quite ready for Fanon, they are on their way....