365 Days and Still Thanking Jesus

I'm not a religious person in the institutional sense -- but I am still waking up every day sending a thank you into the sky because the United States elected this President. Maybe it's because I work on national security issues in DC and was on Capitol Hill after the conservative takeover, through 9/11 and through most of the Iraq war. Maybe its because I saw how the daily drumbeat of fear coming from the right damaged the fabric of our democracy, punished dissent, enforced conformity, made certain topics seem subversive and corroded our open society. We slid backward in the eyes of the world over the past decade. From deal maker to rule breaker, from to beacon to bully, and from innovating to enervating. Changes this year have been significant: the decision to stop using the War on Terror lens on the world, the first post Cold War defense budget (20 years on!) respect for the military's role in our democratic society. These are shifts in the grinding wheels of our government--not as sexy as Climate Change, nor as headline grabbing as Afghanistan or Middle East peace--but they define our nation and our security nontheless. President Obama has already helped us turn some corners. Its up to the rest of us to help him turn the ship.

Arianna claims that the spark from 2008 has extinguished. While I definitely get why many on the Left feel disappointed, I just think the spark has changed form. Campaigns burn hot, governments keep the lights on. This government certainly has a warm glow going. I do agree that we need a bigger story about ourselves (something my psychology friends call a "narrative") that keeps Obama's supporters engaged after the incomparable high of last year's win. The administration's next big task is to facilitate a conversation that helps this nation create a story about the future. One where everyone counts. The best way for this vision to take hold is not to issue it from the White House, but to get our eyes focused on the prize (not too different from the campaign) and then create the opportunities for consultation that will help individual Americans feel like true stakeholders.

Talking about governing institutions doesn't have to be a buzzkill. Our system today may be decayed and preyed on by commercial interests--but these problems can be overcome with a bottom up movement. And that is where new institutions will emerge. We don't even know what they will look like yet. What we do know, however, is that American democracy thrives at the individual and community level.

The internet has revolutionized the potential for meaningful participation on a global scale. I don't mean just the ability to send and process massive amounts of information. In fact, information volume is reaching total absorption on Capitol Hill--where I spend a lot of time these days. How it is communicated is key. Information without a human way to interpret it is like a big vortex of data with no search engine. It can be counter productive. What will create a governing vision for Americans is to re-establish the primary importance of relationships in governance. At the community level, this means the White House should tap the legions of Americans who understand how to create meaningful local participation through dialogue, deliberation and community discussions. This is sometimes called the "conflict resolution" movement--but it really is a cultural phenomenon. Today, more than ever, Americans understand that to move beyond "us versus them" requires more than good intentions and a hopeful vision. It requires a plan and a process for communication. And it works even better when facilitated by someone who knows what they're doing. Fortunately, there are millions of Americans with these skills. The next step for the White House is to create an issue by issue curriculum for them. Last year, my friend Dana and I wrote one of these for civil-military dialogue. Our intention was to help communities engage US security by providing a handbook to where veterans lead a dialogue on the role of the military in American democracy.

(Note: this kind of organizing is very different from traditional mobilization tactics of the Left i.e.Town Halls or marches or petitions...these all lack the flexibility to surge and adapt or to build the kinds of relationships with elected leaders that we need...but will save that for another post)

The left is entering a challenging phase of the Obama presidency. We all know that governing is different than campaigning. We still need to adapt and figure out the shades of gray i.e. how to move from opposition into constructive criticism. We still don't have a practiced division of labor (healthcare should teach many lessons). We must not fall into the typical trap that pits idealism against pragmatism, where the virtuous line up against the effective, and the purists fight the negotiators. Afghanistan will be the next test. We must communicate about this war in a new and different way because it, like this administration, is different than anything that has come before. Putting forward and following up on a new American story may well require new and different kinds of convening, innovative information support systems and ways of communicating. It will also require more of what this team is already good at--a nation of purposeful relationships. I'm hoping for 2,557 more days to help them figure it out.

So, one year after the election, what do you think Candidate Obama would think of President Obama? Tweet your response (our Twitter hashtag is #OneYearLater), or post it in the comments section.

 

Follow Lorelei Kelly on Twitter: www.twitter.com/loreleikelly

Comments

[catfood73]

Lorelei, I just want to make sure I understand your thesis. Are you recommending Obama's people put together a kind of structure for public discussion and engagement? Like seminars or some kind of TV series or a bunch of really big town hall meetings?

If that's what you're saying, huh. I hate to be skeptical on this, because it sounds kind of cool, but how would that not be perceived as being incredibly partisan? I'm not sure the White House is a useful source for such a thing.

Am I understanding your basic point? If so, how do you think the appearance of partisanship could be addressed?

[voxpop4]

We Jews havent heard from God for 4000 years...you Christians havent heard from Jesus for 2000 years and counting. I guess we have to learn to be on our own..(and we havent done too well --just check history). I think God made a mistake when he gave us humans "free will" and the "orgazm"!
These two sad gifts to us has caused more problems in the world since Adam and Eve. And dont tell me there wouldnt be any wonderful babies..although it might take some explaining..."You have to put that thing where?"

[no dodo]

This "happy talk" does not change the reality on the ground, and the ship has not changed course an iota. A permanent residual force of 50,000 combat troops and mercenaries = no change. Leaving our combat forces in Afghanistan where they are sitting ducks among people who hate them = no change. Opposing legislation that would have extended habeas corpus to Bagram prisoners = no change. Stopping prosecutions and convicitons of previous administrations' violations of Nuremberg Trials, Geneva Conventions, and the Army Field Manual = no change. Stopping DOJ investigations into torture and other war crimes = no change. Extending extraordinary renditions of prisoners = no change.

Candidate Obama would probably mount a campaign against President Obama if he were honest with himself, and while Candidate Obama ran a brilliant campaign achieving a broad coalition of support from all sides of the political spectrum ONCE, I do not believe Candidate Obama could do that again.

Listening to Candidate Obama's rhetoric, perhaps I had set my hopes too high. I am among the 72% who had not voted for a presidential candidate in a long time, but from what I have seen so far, I would find it exceedingly difficult voting for Obama a second time. Granted, it takes a long time to turn the "ship of state," but ship has not begun to turn. President Obama is not the "change" I voted for.

[CupOJoe]

Maybe you can write this column again in January because in case everyone's either completely forgotten or has completely lost their minds, President Obama HASN'T BEEN IN OFFICE FOR A FULL YEAR.

[RightOn5]

"effective"? Think again.

[ItsDifferentThisTime]

Please indicate how or why the Obama administration is trying to appease the Republicans. If the Democrats work in unison they can pass whatever legislation that needs to be passed at the time of their choosing. Nancy Pelosi has the the House, Harry Reid has the Senate and Obama has the White house.... Wham bam thank you mam. It seems Obama just needs to work on appeasing his own Democrats and everything will go swimmingly swell while the Republicans go enjoy a day of golf. A win-win for all concerned.

[maxgen]

Kelly says,"The administration's next big task is to facilitate a conversation that helps this nation create a story about the future. One where everyone counts. The best way for this vision to take hold is not to issue it from the White House, but to get our eyes focused on the prize (not too different from the campaign) and then create the opportunities for consultation that will help individual Americans feel like true stakeholders."

And what makes you think that he is interested in or will even listen to what we say? He has turned his back on those who supported him and got him elected. He's been too busy trying to appease Repubs, enriching corporations and appointing those who oppose our vision. They, not we, have his ear. Tell me it's different in primary areas - the wars, wall street, health reform, eliminating contractor corruption, protecting our privacy and civil rights, taking hard stands on energy and environmental issues, limiting presidential powers to those specified in the constitution, and holding folks accountable for torture and war crimes. He is obviously supporting the status quo, usually Bush policies, in those areas, not individual or citizen's constitutional rights.

He'll want us back when the next election comes along. Imo, many of us are disheartened or angry and will support others or drop out.

[jmpurser]

Agreed. I won't be voting for Obama again. In fact he's taught me there's very little reason to ever vote Democratic again.

[gutenmorgen]

At the end of the road of pragmatism there is always the complete abandonment of principles and ideals while averring that they still live in the pragmatist's heart. Obama's political evolution is a textbook example of this well-known principle.

[jmpurser]

Sadly, agreed.

[medwreck]

Nice try. There is a such thing as principled pragmatism and i most assuredly prefer that over ideological intransigence. Just because you're not finding it with/in Obama doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I would be more willing to argue that ideology and the fever pitch at which it is bandied about is the real problem we don't have solutions. Most in the halls of power are fighting demons that don't exist or strawmen, that is a problem for democracy. I thought people voted for Obama because they were sick of polarized politics and now they are begging for it.

[Polly Keary]

I reread the Audacity of Hope sometimes, and when I do, I am always struck afresh by recognition of the policies that Obama is trying to put in place today. The president is consistent with the book. I realize, and I hope everyone does, that entering the White House is accompanied by revelation of a whole lot of information unavailable to candidates. I expect that new information to have some bearing on the goals outlined in the campaign. It may influence what happens at Gitmo, for example. Or in Iraq. We need to consider that. But I haven't had a president I liked better.

[jmpurser]

In the book he said he wanted to make the "too big to fail" banks bigger, pay their CEO's bonuses out of our tax dollars after they collapsed the economy, renig on civil right's promises, cover up war crimes, continue the "patriot act" abuses, and kill health care reform?

Really?

Cause if that is what the book said then I can see why you'd post that. I just can't see why anyone but a republican would have ever voted for him.

[Viola]

Obama's successes, and they are significant, have come primarily in areas where he is able to exert control. They have also been areas that don't threaten major corporate interests or profits.

His compromising, secretiveness, lack luster efforts have been in the realms of finance and healthcare, (I haven't followed the cap and trade stuff closely), as well as "national security", and the record of Bush Administration corruption. And he has severely disappointed the Gay community.

When he believes something, he's direct and specific and open. Other times he retreats to generalities and cliches (we have a uniquely American healthcare system), or he doesn't communicate at all.

I am a supporter, but I am also disappointed and angry. Partly because we never know which part of him is going to take action: the idealist or the pragmatist. With the healthcare debate he's mostly held his fire and it's been leaked several times that he's for triggers, which are simply bullshit. If he is busily, brilliantly maneuvering behind the scenes to engineer a real breakthrough on this legislation, well, we're apparently not going to know until we get to the end. All we can do is react to what is observable now and what we are seeing is a token effort on his part and a big push to compromise in ways that hurt people and benefit large companies.

So maybe his problem isn't substance, it's optics. In which case he's got get better at signaling his intentions and actions.

[Leatherhelmet]

Changing the words "War on Terror" has done nothing to make anyone safer.
The radical Islamists are at war with us whether we want to pretend it is not a war or not.
Obama is dithering on Afghanistan putting our troops in more danger.
We continue to have terror problems and sugar-coating the changes made by Obama
as better than the rock-solid attitude of Bush is ridiculous.

[Doubledoot]

Tell a "story " : A fairy tale maybe ? You saying we need a new "mythology" ? I can tell you a story about a nation plagued by political unrest : oppressed by a previous regim : Oppressed by a rich elite: and the corporate hedgemony: Robbed by a greedy Wall Street : Preyed upon by mortagage and credit card companies. Gouged by utility companies. Generally screwed inside out by the health care industry, doctors and pharmacy corps. Thrown out of work by a goverment owned by a greedy corporate elite who find it more profitable to send precious jobs overseas to people who get paid very little to do the same work. And you want us to organize community sing alongs so we can get warm and fuzzy with all this ? Are you Gnuts ? I agree it will take organization and action but of the kind that stands up and demands the right kind of change and has a plan and can enforce significant negative consequences upon whomever or whatever doesn't want to get with the program. You go ahead and cozy up to the enemy : I will continue to fight them : tooth and nail !

[AnotherMcIntosh]

Well said, as usual.

Fanned.

[Holly Alexander]

Thank you, Lorelie Kelly!
I'm ecstatic to find a Dem/progre­ssive/libe­ral who doesn't want us all to eat our young. Have you thought about what the country might be like a year into a McCain presidency? And the whopping problems President Obama has had to face this year? The economy, international relations, Afghanistan and the climate change meeting in Copenhagen can't be thrown on a back burner, Some people think he shouldn't have tried to do health care, but 2010 may be impossible because it's an election year and it's harder to do big things in the last two years of a presidency, even with the prospect of another term. And you've got to win that.

[DeloresT]

Nice post.

[Holly Alexander]

Thank you.

I keep going ballistic about my/our side ruining the opportunities the Obama election and Obama the person have presented, but worded it poorly. Should have made clear the "you" was the Dems who seem to find the death wish so irresistible, but they probably didn't read past the first sentence, anyway.

[Mike Kilpatrick]

To quote the Talking Heads "Your talking a lot but your not saying anything".

[Malkin72]

What about when something much closer to ideal is still very pragmatic and it's STILL not even put on the table?

Everyone wants health reform and MOST want a strong public option. Why not fight for it?

That isn't pragmatic. It's either corrupt or cowardly.

[stevemarvin]

Exactly.

[Paramendra Bhagat]

Governing is different from campaigning, much harder. That is the key observation to make. ... Arianna is wrong to say the glow is over.