The Headless Donkey

"I think we're not looking sufficiently at what is happening at the grassroots in the country. We have not emphasized sufficiently the cultural revolution that we have to make among ourselves in order to force the government to do differently. Things do not start with governments."

-Grace Lee Boggs

When something horrifically awful happens, our first instinct as human beings is to create a narrative. Great disasters and sudden death beg a framework: what happened, who did it involve, when did it occur? How do we fix it? After September 11th, people were desperate for a story, which is probably why most of us bought a shoddy tale of WMDs, Saddam, and a little place called Iraq.

Now, liberals are trying to create a story for the death of the Democratic party. We're standing in front of the rubble, slack-jawed and eying each other as we sporadically sputter, "W-what happened?" And there are lots of theories about spoiled youth, special interest groups, and the apathetic attitude that resonates from people who will always have enough bread in their bellies and clean water pouring from their faucets.

But the cause may be as simple as basic biology: without the head, the body dies.

The liberal movements of the 1960s brought us some of the brightest and most charismatic leaders of the 20th century: Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., John Kennedy, and Robert Kennedy were all men, who inspired a movement wherever they went. All of them were gunned down in their prime, and whether or not we agree with their particular breed of politics, their influence on ideologies and ability to persuade and masterfully cajole are undeniable.

However, once the head was severed, the body died, and where it did not completely die (as was the case in the Civil Rights department), it morphed into a monochromatic movement. Whites abandoned unions and causes for economic equality and moved into the suburbs. They started to see MLK's legacy as a black legacy rather than a victory for humankind.

The bridge between Kennedy and King was a shaky, precarious link, one built with the purpose of increasing black voter loyalty to the Democratic party. However, when the men were alive and connected, there was magical potential in the Democratic party.

Boggs sees promising spirit in Barack Obama's campaign. Unlike the movements of the 1960s, she sees Barack as the body, and his supporters as the head. If he was gone tomorrow, the movement around him would continue, which speaks to its power. An essential limb to Barack's momentum is Moveon.org, which came to power during Howard Dean's run for the presidency.

Joan Blades and Wes Boyd started Moveon.org in 1998 after they gathered signatures for a Congressional petition. It was the apex of a time when we cared about our president getting a blow job, and Blades and Boyd wanted Congress to "censure President Clinton and move on".

Well, Congress didn't listen, and Dean screamed, but Moveon.org is still around. Indeed, it's bigger and more organized and focused than ever. As opposed to the customary clot of disheveled, disorganized liberals, Moveon.org is extremely efficient in getting things done, unlike the Democratically controlled Congress.

Ever since Reagan stampeded through the country like some kind of folksy Godzilla, Democrats have been scattered and cowering like scared Japanese. We were divided into so many subsets of special interest groups that it was hard to imagine a time when blue-collar, white workers from rural Alabama sort of had A LOT in common with poor black folk.

In the 1990s, we stood before the rubble of the Democratic movement, whimpering. That is, until Moveon.org, and other grassroots movements rose from the ashes. Rather than assuming liberals are apathetic, Blades and Boyd understood how to use new technology to reach a party that still cares, but had felt increasingly powerless and isolated.

Barack Obama makes progressives feel powerful and connected to each other. He is a surge that actually works, and he has propelled Moveon.org into a new sphere of influence. But this is key: Moveon.org doesn't need Barack Obama to live.

With or without Obama, Moveon.org will continue to push the Democratic party left, which is what we so desperately need. Clintonism cost us everything. Through the sin of triangulation, Democrats sacrificed and compromised until we didn't know up from down, and couldn't tell the difference between a donkey and an elephant.

In 2006, Moveon.org helped secure the wins of many candidates they saw as "progressive" rather than just "Democratic." Their candidates' decisive wins shook up the Democratic party that realized it wasn't enough just to wear the color blue. They had to fight for the votes of the progressives.

Any time Hillary or John, or even Barack talk about universal health coverage or the class divide, they're not parroting some greater Democratic dogma that lays chiseled in stone somewhere in the Smithsonian. They've been carefully watching the polls, and grassroots groups like Moveon.org as a kind of collective weather vane. They watch which way the wind blows, and then they respond.

This year's message is Populist. People want to feel healed and empowered, and there's no movement capturing that spirit more than the progressives at Moveon.org. Truly, when a movement reaches the level where each agent feels like he, or she, could potentially become its next leader, then Martin Luther King's vision has surely come to life.

Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!

-MLK, 1968

Our strength is our ability to move on, with or without a head.

Comments

[RTIII]

All good and well, it's just too bad Obama isn't a liberal or progressive. True, he's a Democrat, but he also believes in very conservative fiscal policy and is bankrolled by big corporations.

[23000Days]

Good post, Allison. Your analogy of the movement being the head is thought-provoking. My concern is that behind every magical spectacular, there's a little wiz behind the curtain, controlling perceptions.

"All of them were gunned down in their prime,"
Taken as a group, it's hard to visualize these awful murders as isolated incidents. The line "what if they gave a war and no one came?" pops to mind here. Did the repugs start a war and we just didn't go? Is it still ongoing? Will it become necessary to join the battle?

[Purple Girl]

You Missed John Lennon.

I not only DREAM- I IMAGINE!!

WE have been here for a long time, some remember the begininngs. I became conscious when I was in my teens- mid '70's. And saw it end in '80- the dream was over in a blink of an eye (a shot of a gun).
I have seen the 'buck shot' response by the activist- hoarding their cause, failing to put the Dots together, allowing US to become alienated and compartmentalized. 'Divide & Conquer' has worked for the Corporationist agenda, so far.
There should be a Umbrella Credo that we all progress forward with- a concerted effort will be far more effective.
A Progresive Party that prioritzes the Environment, Human Rights, Responsiblities and Potential Over any Entity (Public, Private- organization, institutions or agents thereof) Which violate those Basic Principles.

Let the Republican and Democratic parties go the way of the Whigs. the Great Experiement has been infiltrated by the same entities that have plagued dictatorships, Monarchies, Communist & Socialist Regimes- Greed for wealth & power regardless of the consequences to mankind or the world that sustains Us all.

[godlessclif]

Meet John Doe.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033891/

Howard Dean led something like the John Doe movement. It was formed on the internet by non politicians. It is being carried on by moveon.org

But exactly like in the movie, it is being highjacked by big money interests behind Barrack Obama. UBS bank is the most obvious donor.

[TommyMcCarthy]

I love Allison Kilkenny...but....but...but

The DEATH of the Democratic party??

Every lefty I know is celebrating the RESURGENCE of the Democratic party....(not to mention the DEATH of the Republican party.....much overstated by the way)

INTERPRETER PLEASE!........Typo?....reckless language?......sarcasm too subtle for me to grasp?....................................tm

[clevelandchick]

A fantastic post, especially the part about Clintonism (ie caving the rightwing blowhards and cozying up to big business) taking the party back decades.

The Democrats in congress now would rather pass bad legislation that stand and fight for good legislation. Harry Reid threatened to force Chris Dodd to physically filibuster against telecom immunity while in the same week he let the GOP block SCHIP legislation without having to lift a finger.

I do not want another Clinton in office that will allow the right wing and big business to run this country while paying lip service to 'feeling our pain'.

[Ravenlea]

Dennis Kucinich is a true progressive. He dropped out of the presidential race today but his words in doing so are still worth listening to.

http://www.wkyc.com/video/player.aspx?aid=53211&bw=

Everyone might also want to check out this 9 part video called Hacking Democracy. It's nine part but it's worth the time and effort to listen to it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzPXer7946E

[Rescisco]

What is leadership? Why in every phase of American life, private as well as public sector, do we seem to have (or at least hear talk about) a leadership crisis? These are the critical questions that go begging.

[research]

Unless a better independent is winning in the polls before the election, I will hold my nose and vote for the dem.

[AJH]

The malaise of our party is clear. Those names you mention were 40+ years ago. Their calls to action are old and tired and as you note have been carved up into single issues making the voters easy to divide.

Unfortunately this election really isn't promissing anything different. Obama calls for change but cannot vocalize what that change means. Certainly there doesn't seem to be much change in platform. No when he speaks of change it's how one accomplishes the platform.

Clintopn panders to the platform but all you have to do is rewinde 13 mos to when she wasn't officially running to know what she says may well not be what she does. Probably won't be even.

We are a party desperately seeking a higher calling. The calling isn't victory it is a cause. What does our party fight for, what won't we sacrifice to win in November.

To be unified one needs a shared cause. An issue or few issues that unify people together in solidarity.

The republican alliance has been religious conservatism, military adventurism, and tax cuts masked as economics. They are sacred cows that unify their party.

What are our sacred cows. Welfare clinton reformed that, Social security how many decades have we been saying it hasn't been fixed, Infrastructure what when california put up 30 billion of it's own money due to federal lack of support.

Our party needs to stand for something people care about.

[freecasey]

I continue to be amazed by all the feel-good Clintonites who still laud his administration for the 1990s economy. He rode the wave caused by the earthquake that was information revolution. How many personal computers were in typical American households in 1992? In 2000? Ergo, how many $1,000-plus items does a typical American household contain, and how many historical economic surges can boast creation of a must-have $1,000 item?

Then there's the 1986 Supercomputer Act, which freed the Internet from its military and government prison. Its sponsor? He just won the Nobel Peace prize.

[NABNYC]

We're in a very mean and ugly period in this country's history. And given the likelihood of a severe economic depression, there is a big question whether people will embrace fascism (as in 1930s Germany) or demand a government of by and for the people.

We had an explosion of creativity and openness in the 1960s and 1970s. Certainly inspired and started by the black civil rights movement in the 1950s. Young people who saw that despite this country's flag-waving claim of freedom for all, the fact is that we only had freedom for white men. And from that grew demands for equal rights for many other groups of people.

The whole 1960s explosion in movie and film, and popular culture and fashion, was one devoted to the idea of openness: let's try it. Young people fled their parents' isolated fenced-in suburban homes and gathered in public parks with hundreds and thousands of their neighbors, fleeing the suffocating isolation and barrenness of the white suburbs.

All that was ended with brutality and violence. The main voices were murdered. Some were imprisoned, harassed, fell to drugs and alcohol, or were marginilized by poverty and desperation.

And since then we have become a society in which the only thing that matters is money. What did it cost. What's it worth. How much do you make. Those are our "values." And as people start losing their jobs, losing their homes, losing their retirement funds, the inevitable conclusion is that they are worthless failures. What now?

Our government is 100% corrupt. They all take money and bribes to sell their votes. Witness the telecommunications immunity which has no purpose other than to shield the corporations from their liability, and shield the Bush Regime from having their misdeeds disclosed to the public.

We should create our own platform. Including a prohibition on taking money from anyone.

The Democratic party is rotten. It would be easier to start a new party than to try to sort out which of them is less of a traitor than the next one. With obvious exceptions.

[dairyair]

I have been a deomcrat most of my life. I've had to move to the center because democrats have moved further and further left. And maybe a reason for democrats losing voters is for the same reason. There is no line in the sand that says how liberal(looney sometimes) the party is and appears to get more looney(liberal) everyday.
Right now my choices would be Paul, liberal republican, McCain also a liberal republica, or Edwards, liberal but appears to distance himself from special interests.

[Libellule]

Great post! I think it is important to remember that we need to pressure our representatives to do what we want. A government should respond to its people, therefore it doesn't matter whom is nominated as long as they do their job and respond to the citizen's concerns. Personally, I like Edwards, i think his message is the strongest progressive/populist out of the top 3. Yes his record isn't the best, but neither is BO or HRC, they all have faults in their voting records. I think its important to note that he was the Senator of a state that is more towards the red hue than NY or Illinois. If a representative is supposed to represent his state, i think he probably did his job, even though he felt otherwise, which in my opinion shows strength in character not weakness. However, you cannot deny that John Edwards is the most outspoken about embracing progressive ideals. Also, I feel he has the best chance to win if he were nominated, especially since the likely Republican Candidate is McCain. But, that does not mean i wouldn't support BO or HRC.

ANYWHO, This post is about supporting grassroots movements to force whoever is nominated and elected to pass liberal / progressive policies. I feel that this is more important than all the bickering about BO HRC or JE.

[vsign]

"I will get the people who voted for her. Now the question is, could she get the people who voted for me?"

You know what Mr Barack Obama? I don't want you on the democratic ticket - period. You are CRAZY to think that after those words, I would vote for you, no matter what. You are dangerous in your thinking and your words. Step down from the podium. You hurt the democratic party - you hurt ME! You don't think you need me? We'll see. I hope your political career takes a nose-dive! Everytime you give an interview, it gets worse. But maybe that is good - voters can finally judge who you really are. You are not a democrat. You are not inviting others into the party - you are dismantling the democratic party. Are you a snob - when it comes down to it? I think you are a SNOB!