During this campaign season, we have been frequently confronted with the question regarding where genuine change begins - at the grassroots or from top-down. During my college years, I came to the conclusion that my generation was a politically complacent and cynical generation. Reagan had assured us that he would keep us safe and our only focus should be on making money and lots of it. My generation was more than happy to leave politics to the elites and advanced citizenry (actively participating in politics) was uncool, unnecessary, and irrelevant. Therefore, it seemed that progress could really only happen when the government led the movement.
Many progressives, like myself, had hoped that Bill Clinton, the fresh-faced Democrat from Arkansas, would be the progressive leader who would drastically change the political dynamic of the country, which Reagan seemed to have set in stone. However, without an active grassroots momentum holding the administration accountable, progressives were to be disappointed by Clinton's centrist positioning, which not only failed to challenge the status quo, it often even reinforced it.
During the Democrats' debate on MLK Day, Clinton and Obama, in response to the question as to whom MLK would have endorsed, argued as to how change occurred in American society. Obama claimed that change had to start at the grassroots, which was the principle on which the Civil Rights movement was based. Clinton argued that the American people should not have to work that hard - that they should have a leader who is already tapped into the needs and wishes of the citizenry and works accordingly. With all due respect to Clinton, I would have to disagree. That is simply not the way the U.S. works or is supposed to work. To quote Michael Douglas in Rob Reiner's film, The American President: "America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad..."
Barack Obama has captured this message in his candidacy. He understands that power must lie in the people because change cannot happen from top-down; such a change would, at best, be superficial. Change must start with a people who have a vision for a "greater society," who are inspired to believe in progress, and have determination to work for it. We must have a leader who believes in the peoples' ability to create new dynamics and accepts the peoples' active participation in the political process.
I have been wistfully watching a dynamic generation of young activists inspired by the message of hope and rallying at the grassroots to create amazing turnouts at Obama rallies.
This is a far cry from my college days. Finally, we have a chance to mobilize our country beyond complacency and cynicism. We have a candidate who inspires political activism and can tap into the energy of the social momentum. We, the people of the United States, have the chance to take back the power that is our right to wield. Barack Obama is the candidate for change. He may not be able to brag of vast years of experience in Beltway politics. Rather, his resume his even more impressive and relevant to the job of U.S. president. Having been a community organizer, Civil Rights Lawyer, State Senator, and Congressional Senator, he understands where the source of change is. It's a bold vision, but NOW is the time to be bold. Can we do it? Yes, we CAN!
Her response to the question was as follows:
There is no doubt that change comes from the extraordinary efforts of the American people...It is also true, and Dr. King understood this ...[that we had to get political leaders] over the line so that they would be part of the movement that he gave his life for. ... And then there was a meeting of morality and politics, and the political leaders finally responded. the American people should not have to work so hard to get leaders who will actually help them and realize we are strongest when we lead by our values.
So, a few things:
1. Sen. Clinton clearly recognized and agreed that change comes from the grassroot. But she argued that once the desire for change bubbles up from the grass roots, political leaders have to act on it. She did not -- I repeat she did not -- argue that social change wa asa top-down process.
2. Her comment that "the American people should not have to work so hard" clearly did not mean that the people should just relax and our leaders should just take care of everything. It clearly referenced the failure of our leaders for a long time to respond to the desire for change expressed by the people.
In the context of the question and answer, when she said "people should not have to work so hard" before leaders effected change, I thought she meant people should not have to be beaten, arrested, blown up, terrorized by dogs, shot or lynched before political leaders addressed their concern.
By all means, be inspired by Obama. I sure am. But lets not tear down Hillary in the process for things she did not say.
The author did not attack or "tear down" Hilary Clinton. The author simply disagreed with her.
Perhaps "tear down" was too strong (criticize would more accurately reflect how I feel, but for some reason I didn't think of that word at the time), but nor was this merely disagreement. The author asserted she expressed a thought that she did not express.
I tried to point out that I think this was done in good faith, but that doesn't make it any more correct.
Hillary Clinton is afraid of Barack Obama. She has to attack him because she can't defeat him on the merits.
Well, tough luck, because African-Americans and now increasing numbers of women have caught on to the Clinton shenanigans.
I think the gig is up.
I don't think this poster makes any kind of allegation whatsoever concerning race.
We're talking about acitvism and the primary example in play is the Civil Rights Movement. The quote we've been discussing as well as other statements by Hillary Clinton regarding the Civil Rights Movement reveal a wider picture of her lack of commitment to grassroots organizing. It is hard work. What Obama is talking about is a new and deeper dynamic connecting the public and the President........even the government as a whole.
My point is that Barack Obama has been extraordinarily successful at connecting his personal quest to the narrative of American history which, by the way, I think he presents beautifully.
Hillary Clinton has not engaged in that sort of reflection. She does not connect to the struggles of ordinary people in the way that Barack Obama does. She does not understand grassroots power in the way that Barack Obama does. She does not seem especially interested in galvanizing the American public to change our world.
The coming crisis posed by climate change, for example, can be dealt with a lot more effectively if the public is mobilized behind an action plan.
That all said, while I agree with you 100% regarding Obama, I don't regarding Clinton, and that is where this post loses me and it is the distinction I was trying to make. She's no Obama when it comes to connecting with people or grassroots organizing, I grant you, but I am looking for something different in a president in 2008. I want smeone who is going to be able to go toe-to-toe with the bad guys. In the words of Warren Zevon, "The name of the game is to hit and hit back." (though he was talking about the Sweet Science).
I know Hillary can do it. Obama is, to me, an unknown.
So, don't think I didn't notice though your wild driving and veering off into foreign policy when before you were so deeply concerned about me supposedly getting off-subject.
The original point: Obama wants us to be engaged and involved. He recognizes in the deepest sense the potential of a leader who has the people with him.
Due to the nature of American federal politics, we have been and will be a two-party system, unlike parliamentary systems which enourage the development of multiple parties. During periods of political unrest and change we may have spells of more than two political parties, but it never lasts. This is currently a very historic window of change opening, partly as a reaction to the Bush years, and partly due to the fact that the Republican Party was hijacked by the rightsts, and the adjustment is now taking place within the Democratic Party. What interesting times we live in.