When is a Campaign a "Movement"? (Never!)

Like most of us, I have been impressed and energized by the way in which the Obama "movement" has inspired young people, independents and the skeptical, drawing back into politics many who seemed weary of their citizenship. In a country where only a bare majority vote in Presidential elections (far less in state and local elections), and where often less than one of five young people have voted at all, such a domestic surge can only be greeted with enthusiasm.

But I have been less impressed by the peculiar understanding of what a movement is and by the perverse notion of citizenship as discretionary activity that candidates have to "earn" with movement-like campaigns.

So welcome to all whom Senator Obama has inspired. But, sorry folks, his is not a movement. Movements are not electoral instruments organized by political candidates or their supporters to win a nomination or an election. And movements do not issue in an election, after which participants go back to doing what they were doing before.

A movement is about a cause: peace, civil rights, health reform, feminism, economic justice, global fairness. Or, for those of another mind, about the right to life or the place of religion in public life. Participants in a movement work for the cause -- day in and day out, in and out of electoral seasons. Yet for too many Obama supporters, the cause seems to be Obama himself.

Movements outlast candidates and candidacies. Their leaders generally don't even run for office -- think Martin Luther King, Hugo Chavez, Benjamin Spock, and Betty Friedan; or Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh. Candidates may become attached to or embody a cause, but the cause comes first and the candidate is never himself (herself) the cause, any more than working to elect the candidate is the movement. Movements do not start in a candidacy or end in an election.

This brings me to the meaning of citizenship. I am thrilled to see such a vigorous primary season, with so many Americans on both sides of the aisle newly engaged in debating and choosing their nominee for the Presidential race. Yet on both side of the aisle, too many seem to think their participation is purely discretionary, a present, a gift to the process, to be withdrawn if their candidate does not win. "If McCain wins," I am sitting it out!" "If Obama is not the nominee, I may revert to passivity, complacency, cynicism. And you'll be sorry."

Only it doesn't work that way. It is your liberty that is at stake in your participation. Withdraw from politics and your freedom is imperiled and it is you who will be sorry. Freedom is a right, but participation is an obligation. Nor is your participation just about voting; it is about civic commitment, jury service, military duty, local participation, community service and a dozen other responsibilities that have nothing to do with who wins or loses an election.

When Senator Obama calls for your engagement in the political and civic process, do you really think he means only as long as it's about voting for him? About voting at all? If there is a movement attached to his cause, beyond making him the nominee, it is a movement to call on citizens to reassume the responsibilities and obligations of citizenship. To understand that the quality of our democracy depends less on the quality of leadership than the quality of citizenship.

Whether Obama wins or loses, his cause can only win if his supporters understand that there is no going back now to cynicism or complacency or resentment. That they owe America their engagement whether their man wins or loses. That voting in the primary and again in November is only the first and in some ways least significant responsibility of citizenship.

So next time someone says "yes we can!" what I will be "hoping" (I believe in hope too!) is that it means more than "yes we can elect Obama!"

Comments

[Semper]

The problem Ben is who cares if you are impressed with Obama. He is the best candidate, he has the best election committed and they are very smart. It shows the type of team, Barrack is going to bring to Washington. They bring a different way to fight against the big money interest of Washington. Washington is governed by permanent fixtures, who have corrupted our economic and political system. We even have skeptics who don't even know how to vote for an honest man. Thats too bad. Americans need to look at itself. Its no longer bold, innovative or inventive. The world has caught up. And will passed us in this race to the future. Its like listening to Woody Austin say he played better than Tiger Woods, went the Tiger walked off the stage with the champion trophy. When does America have the courage to do the right thing instead of holding on a past that will deny us a better future. Is this what it feels like when a country starts its downfall. You hold on to whats familiar, even if its a sinking ship.

[Pdubya]

we have a movement afoot:

rEVOLution!!!!!!!!!!

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

". . . Since 9/11 America has certainly turned into a top-down police state, but true post-modern fascism requires a popular movement to usher it into power. Bush has created a dictatorship out of the Presidency, now the next step towards fascism is being marketed to exploit the desire for change. The depressed national mood, due to the war and economic recession/depression has compromised sane reasoning and courageous opposition needed now more than ever. This has created the conditions for a newcomer to magically appear with a message of hope, using the mantra 'Change', wrapped in a swooning fever that has infected the young and left liberal excuse machines, such as 'Move On' who were never serious about stopping Bush/ Cheney and the war."
(more here)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19370.htm

[zozosmom]

"So next time someone says "yes we can!" what I will be "hoping" (I believe in hope too!) is that it means more than "yes we can elect Obama!""

But wouldn't it be nice if Obama himself told us what he was talking about? I hear so many Obama supporters put words in his mouth. I ask what he believes and most of them don't know; the rest just project their own values onto him. How convenient for him. This is not being an active citizen. It is being a groupie.

[AnninCA]

He is telling you exactly that. Yes we can is all about him.

That's really all it's about.

He is running a campaign on not a lot more than personality.

[reedmaker]

What seems clear to me is that Clinton is saying "if I am not the nominee, then vote for him" and Obama is saying "if I am not the nominee, then do not vote for her." This is beyond inexcusable.

I want to much so like him and to be enthusiastic about voting for him, if it comes to that, but I am finding my enthusiasm tripped up again and again by his cynicism (and his supporters' strident denials that he is cynical).

[zozosmom]

You ask, "When Senator Obama calls for your engagement in the political and civic process, do you really think he means only as long as it's about voting for him?" Apparently, he means exactly that. He has said repeatedly that his supporters won't vote for Hillary if she wins. His own wife is iffy on supporting Hillary if she wins. Yes, the Obama "movement" is ALL about getting HIM elected. He is the Alpha and the Omega. He needs to switch around one of his signature lines so it actually speaks the truth: "It's not about you. It's about ME!"

[AntonBursch]

The Movement is not Barack Obama for President.

The Movement, and there is a movement, is people taking control of the government out of the hands of the few who have been screwing it up for the last 40 years.

Barack Obama is a leader in this movement. As is John Edwards. But the movement didn't start with them and it won't end with them.

"Yes We Can" is not "yes, we can win an election".

If that is what you think it means than you shouldn't be writing about this as though you are an authority because you haven't even paid attention here.

"Yes We Can" is about "We the people" no longer waiting for the few with power in government to keep their promises, but "We the people" taking over and fixing these messes and getting this country to work.

This is a movement of people taking responsibility for this country.

A last note... this is not a movement of Democrats. It is a movement of American people. Democrats, Independants and Republicans.

This isn't about getting Obama or even a Democrat elected. And if you think that by playing the 'any Democrat is better than a Republican' card is going to guilt people to vote for Hillary Clinton, who is fighting this movement, then you are really out of touch with this movement.

[tbone99]

And you are out of touch with politcs.if you think corporations are just going to start to "share" their money and power you're deluded. It doesn't matter how responsible people are, they are outgunned , when it comes to getting the attention of their representatives over lobbyists.

[NoMoreDrama]

Yeah, we should probably pack up and forget about it. Like the Hippies that turned into Yuppies. Go along to get ahead. Like a Clinton. If she was so passionate, why did she do nothing to raise some attention to issues in the senate? Oh, now she's taking on business. And isn't it the height of arrogance to assume that millions of people on the same wavelength can be tucked away by Corps that depend on their support to. Go Away fatalists, and cowards. You had your day and you blew it. Go watch Easy Rider again. I think I understand the ending better than you Boomers.

[boufers]

Alas, I'm afraid after all of my reading and research re Obama, it turns out he just another politician. Say what you think the people want to hear. If Democrats think that the Republicans who voted or endorsed Obama for the primary are going to support him in the general election, then I have some beachfront property in Arizona that I want to sell them! Wake up. It looks like Karl Rove's strategies and tactics are alive and well.

[boufers]

Alas, after all of my reading about Obama, he is just a mortal man. And a politician! We need to be careful in whom we place our trust for this election. I don't believe that intelligent Democrats believe for a minute that the Republicans are going to embrace Obama and vote for him in the general election. Looks like Karl Rove's strategy will be successful again.

[zebra3]

You insinuate that Obama is in it for himself, whereas Clinton is the "team player" for democrats. That's total bull, of course. Even if she's losing and cannot make up the gap, she wants to draw this thing out--take it all the way to Denver--enlist party insiders to make her the candidate even if she's behind. Do you really see this as a "selfless sacrifice" for the good of the country?

Your saying it does not make it so. I believe the "movement" that is taking place can be described as a mass desire of American citizens to re-ignite the American Dream and repair the image of the United States around the world. Obama is an inspirational leader and we believe he is in the best position to help us do that. Our sense of "urgency" in this endeavor explains our frustration with the insistence of the Clinton candidacy. If she is our nominee, a huge opportunity will be lost: an opportunity to offer us a candidate who inspires, but also an opportunity to re-invigorate American political life and grow the democratic base. Many young voters and voters who have been turned off to politics for generations (until this year) will disengage, perhaps for another generation; the crossover republicans will resign themselves to voting for McCain....

[satorist]

I am Them and We define terms. You are not a movement. You haven't even filed a Movement Application Form!

What incredibly empty gasbagging. Anyone but an academic (apparently) can see Something is going on out there.

Whatever it was that caused a coalescence around FDR in reaction to the Depression changed society forever. A similar coalescence is emerging now, in reaction to a political depression. If it is denied by back room deals at the convention, delegates are unlikely to be comforted by the knowledge that the angry mobs descending on the convention do not constitute a "movement".

[mexamerican]

agreed. what a bunch of elitist garbage. don't patronize me, barber, w/ that "sorry folks" crap. jfk led a movement as did reagan. last i heard, they ran for political office.

[tbone99]

Reagan was used by a movement -it started with Prop 13 in calif.and took off from there.he was only its figurehead.

[GoreyFantod]

Well said.

[smike]

"To understand that the quality of our democracy depends less on the quality of leadership than the quality of citizenship."

I know this is a late comment, but I still have to say - that is a good line put to good use.

[pollster08]

The man who wrote this article is old and.....as vanilla as they come. He's trying to stamp out hope and deny there is a clear movement in this country.

I'm sorry but I think most....even those not supporting Obama, would have to disagree.

There is a clear movement in this country. Go Obama!

[Herrington]

Old?

[tbone99]

Vanilla?

[awb]

when I was a teenager - all the boys were waiting to find out their number in the draft lottery when they turned 18 -- there was interest and involvement in the political arena from then on

our children are not us in terms of politics --in fact what I see (saw that is) in the next generation was more than apathy - it was disgust at the political system in this country

This was born from watching their parents and their parents friends argue - almost to a hostile level about politics in this country. My friends were always from diverse political parties - but until the late 90's Clinton scandals when I did the screaming and defending of our President - to the GWBush era - where there is no defending -- civil discourse on politics is rare

And then comes Barack Obama -- and he says you can disagree without being disagreeable -- he says he doesn't have to demonize the ideas of others but he also doesn't have to support them --

These are fundamental simply civil concepts of a democracy. But it took the Jr Sen from Illinois to rearrange the landscape and excite people who were not into and/or disgusted with poluitics -- to energize people--

We have a unique opportunity now - that is we do not welcome- embrace - run to elect Barack Obama the next President of the USA - we will miss something truly unique

I barely remember JFK but I do remember RFK and he inspires me still -- but with a new revitalized prescence in the political arena my daughter who will vote in Nov for the first time is now feeling it --

And they are the future -- and we need this young progressive man who sees the future and can guide us there

[Herrington]

Dear awb, my draft number was 266, in the first draft lottery. It is a number I will never forget. It both relieved and saddened me that number. My classmates went off to a war that I did not. They came back wounded in body and in soul. To this day, if I see a fiftyish man on the street I look carefully, to see if I knew him. It is a haunting.

I protested, I marched, I sat in, I tuned in, I turned on. Things changed. The war was over. Civil Rights were law. Segregation was banished. Academic freedom was cemented. Medicare, OSHA and the EPA. And we then went about our business.

Nixon was a joke. Ford didn"t matter. Carter was sandbagged. Then we got Reagan, and the whole nightmare began anew. We took notice, but the fight seemed fair, a dimwit against a smart and tough Democratic Congressional majority. Still, Reagan busted the unions, sacked the EPA, and emboldened the right with supply side rationales for everything from mergers intended to combat organized labor to indentured servitude.

Bush 1 came and didn"t matter.

Bill Clinton was the star crossed player on who"s watch the world went bad. He made choices that were to the right of Nixon, Welfare "reform", NAFTA, expanded H1-B visas and for which we got a balanced budget and a bump in minimum wage.

This has been a few years in the making, this revolt. Bush is the logical conclusion and blatant symbol of what Republicans will do, always do, to this nation.

Forget the generational finger pointing. It took people who were paying attention to see it coming. Those that spoke were not heard. Now, everyone is awake, old and young, to the peril that has been in the making. We have another unpopular war, another government under the thumb of corporations, and our freedom of speech squelched by nationalistic jingoism. It is the same fight it was 40 years ago.

My question is, why do we keep having to fight it?

[GoreyFantod]

As a society, we forget our history so we doom ourselves to repeat it.

I am a member of the generation that awb mentions above. I was born after the deaths of JFK, MLK, RFK, Malcolm X, as well as Joplin, Morrison and Hendrix. I grew up in a union family, swathed in transformational politics and activism - my lullabies were Free To Be You & Me, folk music and Motown. I went to alternative schools and grew up believing that ordinary people could overcome oppression.

Some of us young people never gave up on the idealism of those who came before us, which is precisely why we're well-equipped to see through the b.s. of the system. It's also why so many of us under the age of 40, or so, have either found ways outside of electoral politics to engage politically or have given up. I won't speak for those who are genuinely apathetic or uncaring, but I will submit that disenfranchisement is widespread & systematic.

I take it very seriously that I am heir to an unbroken chain of non-violent resistance and radical optimism. I'm not an Obama convert, but I can certainly understand the deeply felt, human need to believe that change is possible.

[BlueAsh]

I really disagree with this essay. What *does* constitute a movement then? Mass hysteria?

What's happening with the Obama campaign seems to me to have all the characteristics of a movement: there is no material "reward," especially short-term gain, for most of its participants. Their loosely shared goal is (perhaps unrealistically) grand and idealistic, and, for lack of a better word, "vague" -- precisely because, in this case, "electing Obama" is but a small part of it. The participants share a sense of contributing to something that benefit a greater number than themselves. They also share, and radiate to "onlookers", the palpitating thrill of being part of something big. Though each participant may be "small" and "insignificant", together they are a force to be reckoned with--and they know it too. Though each individual may not be able to influence the direction of the group, the group cannot exist without them--that kind of enpowerment only comes from a movement. Sometimes, the social climate is such that all it takes is a leader to waken up many and get a movement on its way.

A political campaign, on the other hand, has its eye only on the prize--getting its candidate elected, or passing a particular legislation, or making a symbolic statement. That's exactly what the Clinton campaign is.

[mawrm]

Obama came to Alabama last July and spoke to a diverse crowd of 200-300. When he came back to Alabama last month he addressed a crowd of over 11,000. A diverse crowd of blacks, whites, Latinos, Asians in Deep South Red State Alabama. After the event, a white friend who had never been to an Obama event remarked at how amazing the event was, to see the diversity of people together for Barack Obama. For people in the Deep South, this is a moment LONG overdue. Southern whites are tired of being labeled backward racists, southern blacks want to see whites trust black people in leadership more. The event was inspiring to EVERYONE, to see each other joined together and excited about a common political goal. And they are working TOGETHER to get Barack Obama elected because it offers a new image for our nation, a chance at REAL reconciliation - a _movement_ to fundamentally change the socio-political nature of our land. Better united, the South can better tackle the problems which have festered under the convenient distractions of "race" - poverty, failing schools, poor health care, economic inequity, etc. As Obama stated in SC, bad schools for black kids are as serious a problem as bad schools for white kids and what we need to focus on is fixing the schools for ALL the kids. This movement is about repairing the relationship of citizens to their government, from DC down to the local county; to return intelligent and honest discourse to politics; to remove unproductive divisiveness; to boot out special interests and restore the voice of everyday citizens in their political process. Local people see the damage lobbying does when friends of politicians get big contracts and wealthy developers can gooble up property and get tax breaks doing it while the ordinary people foot the bill. Thus the mindset shifts from "those dirty politicians" to "we the people must be active and hold our governments accountable", from passivity to action. It's these kind of seismic changes that this movement is all about.