[img]7|left|||no_popup[/img]
Okay, so the headline isn’t, strictly speaking, true. I am plenty pleased that Obama won. President Bush and the GOP had eight years of governance, they botched it, and now comes someone new. Obama brought to the campaign a better set of policies and, more importantly, a superior vision and temperament than McCain. That Obama inspired so many to become involved in the political process is commendable. That the world is jubilant about Obama’s win and looking forward to renewing diplomatic relations that frayed under President Bush is encouraging. And, except for the hardcore Republican base who see Obama’s win as the Russian Revolution and will continue to see it that way no matter what, Obama stands a good chance of truly achieving a government that doesn’t shut people out the way Republicans have shut out Democrats and dissenters in the past eight years.
Still, I never signed on to the lofty rhetoric that sees in Obama the catalyst for revolutionary change. Frankly, I find this clamouring for a leader, regardless of who it is, to take the country to a new promised land to be akin to sheep clamouring for a shepherd. This desire, this need to be “led” is strange and problematic, and a lot of this celebrating strikes me like a hallelujah chorus for someone who says that 2 + 2 = 4 after 8 years of someone telling us that 2 + 2 = 5. Nevertheless, the bar for Obama has been set very high, beyond what we should expect as a matter of course. But as he pointed out in his victory speech, the victory is not his alone. In other words, it’s up to everyone, Democrat, Republican and others, to work towards the change they want to see.
It’s a noble sentiment, and I profoundly wish that it comes to pass amidst the difficult challenges ahead, but this is where celebration gives way to skepticism. Without trivializing the magnitude of the economic and foreign policy problems we face, singling out the economy and the wars as problems is like taking shots at the broadside of a barn. Less talked about is how these are but symptoms of a deeper pathology. The way elections are carried out, for example, and the way a corrupted media influences the dissemination and discussion of information. When nominees in the primaries are shut out of the process, when Presidential candidates are shut out of the big show (Pop quiz: other than Ralph Nader, who were the other two presidential candidates? What were their policies?), there is something very wrong. Yet, election and media reform are not on the top of people’s lists. To some extent, it’s understandable given the biggies, but for all this talk of change, the election followed a familiar script in which money is the narrator, establishment-approved candidates get the leads, and everyone else is lucky to get a cameo. The only reason not to have pushed for a dark horse candidate like Cynthia McKinney, herself a historic candidate running on a truly progressive platform of change, was a matter of strategy and unavoidable cynicism. It’s a shame that the tactically correct thing to do merely reinforced the people’s indoctrination to vote for one of two parties. But given the way things are, however, the first logical step was, indeed, to boot out Republicans using Democrats. Now that Democrats are in place, however, it’s a question of holding them to their promises – and sending them packing alongside the GOP if they turn out to be politics as usual.
The Limit of Change
So if I’m not especially jubilant at Obama’s victory, beyond the fact that I just don’t celebrate politicians as “leaders,” it’s because I’m not convinced people really embody the change of all those inspirational speeches. It’s Prop. 8 passing, of course, that cinches it for me. As heartening as it is that so many voted against it, it’s discouraging that people – even Obama supporters – still clung to their prejudice against gays. Here, then, is the limit to “change” and “yes we can.”
And the problem isn’t just in the result, but in the discussion that led up to it, When Prop. 8 opponents called people who lied about gay marriage liars and denounced people who actively campaigned as bigots, this was condemned as angry name-calling. Never mind that Prop. 8 supporters proclaimed gay marriage, and by extensions gays, a corrupting influence on children and a severe threat to social stability, the angriest of all angry name-calling. Prop. 8 opponents were damned whether they played nicely or bluntly, illustrating a break in communication and showing that you can’t talk to people who won’t listen.
The point here isn’t to relive the campaign. It’s just that this entire electoral ordeal, exemplified by Prop. 8 and its ilk, illustrated how conversations here actually happen by ballot, by force of law. From a pragmatic perspective, it’s often necessary to take sides on the various propositions and candidates out there. Ultimately, however, the disease is this incessant need to resort to government when ordinary persuasion doesn’t work, something that applies to any number of hot-button issues in all shades of the political spectrum. This all leads me back to what George Woodcock wrote in The Rejection of Politics, “Anarchism is the only logically complete doctrine of freedom, because it denies all external authority, all domination of man by man. It proclaims the sufficiency of the individual human mind and spirit, and the inborn tendency of men towards peace and cooperation when their natural feelings have not been twisted and frustrated by the oppression of authority.”
With the news reporting on Obama’s intentions to begin undoing (http://news.yahoo.com/) President Bush’s ill-conceived directives (to put it mildly) once in office, there is hope for sanity. But I’m going to wait a while before popping the cork, not so much because I’m wondering what Obama will do, but because I wonder what “the people” will do.
Frédérik invites you to discuss this week's column and more at his blog (frederik-sisa.blogspot.com).
