I can't lie, Obama has moved me. And while I hope he institutes a progressive policy, it would not surprise me if he did not. Politicians have a responsibility to the public to do what the public wants, and if they think the public wants them to do A, they will probably go along with it. So while I am celebrating Obama being elected, I do not buy the "he was being centrist to get elected, he is really a progressive-wolf in centrist-sheep's clothing."
I would say the most moving part of his story, though, and the reason I am more hopeful of his ability than most other politicians are his self-reflective nature and his community organizing roots. Atleast according to various exposes of him in various forms of media, he spends alot of time contemplating himself, trying to develop self-knowledge. Self-reflection is so key to so much in my life, that I can't help but have some confidence in a leader who appears to have a similar relationship with it. That and various anecdotes that speak to the kindness in his heart give me cause to hope.
Now, if he can manage to transition his campaign arm into a grassroots organization with the purpose of passing progressive policy, oh man, that would make for an interesting future. The creation of a Democratic grassroots "machine", so to speak, that would have a progressive agenda of its own, plus an ameniable President and congress could be a recipe for significant change.
This is a rare opportunity. If the left can mobilize a grassroots mind-changing campaign along side a policy changing campaign, then we could see some real change. I hope sds manages to jump on this opporunity, because we could sway large numbers of people if we can manage to get our voice out there in a relevant and meaningful way.
Another interesting development that Obama's campaign's extreme grassroots nature could produce is a substantial uptick in the pariticipation of the public in our government. It could be the beginnings of a culture of participation, which will only lead toward participatory democracy. I wonder if Obama realizes the impact he could have on the way government works if he can transition his grassroots campaign organization into a more permeanent institution.
This campaign has also shown that you can get marginalized groups mobilized and involved, as well as the average citizen. They just need to be inspired and she the disillusionment that our system of government seems to naturally produce in people because of its unresponsiveness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I'm curious as to why so many SDS-supporters seem to be such a fan of "participatory democracy" yet most (if not all, that I have seen through the links on your blog) call the result of CA Prop 8 in this year's election such a travesty? Especially since the vast majority of the people that voted in favor of Prop 8 also voted for Obama/Biden.
It would seem that the "people's voice" in CA has been heard... but it also seems that, because the results are contrary to the stated goals of the SDS and its supporters, it is an unacceptable response from the people. Or am I wrong in this observation?
Thank you for allowing me to visit your site!
I would say that Prop 8 is a travesty because it oppresses a group of people, not because it was a proposition. I do not think any SDSer has claimed that democracy is infallible in terms of oppressing people.
Participatory democracy would require a stronger public discourse than has occurred, as well as popular participation in the implementation of said policy (atleast this is my definition of part dem). I think many more people would be uncomfortable with having to tell someone face-to-face that they could not get married to the person they love.
With respect, didn't Prop 8 simply say that "marriage" would be defined as between a man and a woman? Nothing concerning the union between same-sex partners was addressed, one way or the other.
In fact, I think most people ARE in favor of same-sex unions, as long as they are not defined in the same manner as traditional unions by the State.
Wouldn't the simplest solution simply be to remove the requirement of the State to issue licenses to be married? What more invasive factor can the State exercise than to say "yea or nay" to a couple (regardless of sex) that wants to be joined together? If two people do so choose, they could simply go to the nearest church/temple/mosque/etc and have the ceremony of their choice performed by the religious/spiritual/secular person of their choice.
Simply an observation... I'm not passing judgement.
The point of defining marriage as between two adults instead of just between a man and a woman is symbolically very significant, apart from the state-granted benefits of marriage. Marriage law is a de jur "separate-but-equal" policy. (I actually agree with you that the state should not have a hand in marriage, but that isn't the world we live in right now) Confronting this policy is an attempt by mainstream LGBTQ people to try to normalize their position and remove the stigma of being the "other." It is both a civil rights issue and a moral issue, because it is a symbol of their oppression... so many LGBTQ people just want to live normal lives with their would-be spouses and defining marriage as between two people would be a step in that direction.
The point is that this struggle is about changing the minds of Americans, not just changing the government's policies. What I still cannot wrap my mind around is why so many people feel threatened by broadening the definition of marriage. What are your thoughts?
I am unable to defend anyone elses position on the question of "marriage" versus "civil union", and my personal views are based on a love of my faith and a respect for traditional Judeo-Christian values and the benefits they can bring to a society. Unless there is some sort of common understanding that we can arrive at regarding my opinions, they cannot be the basis for a "debate" on he issue.
However, I would ask you which you think is more difficult: changing enough people's minds to win a 51% majority to stop another referendum, or convince enough people that the State has no LEGAL or MORAL authority to issue marriage licenses in the first place?
How could your efforts be better served then to remove the barriers to "equality", rather than having to change the existing barriers to suit both sides of the issue?
To carry on my thought (if I'm permitted)...
Using past civil rights issues as our historical examples, we see that people decided to REMOVE the barrier of segregated schools as illegal, rather than simply take the time and effort to "educate" the masses to the injustice of racial segregation. Show the success of a NEW system (integration) rather than CHANGE an old system from within (segregation).
Analogies don't work well in debate, I know... I'm simply saying that, in the case of Prop 8, I can't imagine that it would be EASIER for those in support of gay marriage to change the minds of the majority of Californians than it would to have the State stop dictating who can and can't get "married".
With that barrier removed, it would be constitutionally illegal to discriminate between the insurance coverage that a traditional man-woman married couple has access to, and the insurance available to non-traditional couples.
The genius of our society isn't that the "fight" for equality goes on and on... the genius is that the "fight" doesn't need to be a fight at all. The LESS our government meddles in our lives with restrictive policy and procedure (like marriage licenses), the easier it is for ANYONE to live the lifestyle they want, equally empowered to determine their own wants, needs, and desires and to persue those as they best see fit.
Post a Comment