Letting History Be Our Guide

Cross-Posted at OpenLeft.com

Barack Obama's New Hampshire concession speech became one of the most important moments in this campaign. The speech was made into that powerful "yes we can" video and was downloaded and commented on a ton. What has been less commented on, but something which I think is critically important, is how in this speech and many others in his campaign, Obama builds the foundation for his candidacy on the history of progressivism in this country. Whoever you are for in this primary, I think this idea, that we stand on the shoulders of the leaders of the past, is worthy of praise.

Obama's speech, in its climatic moment, went like this:

"But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope. For when we have faced down impossible odds; when we've been told that we're not ready, or that we shouldn't try, or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people.

Yes we can.

It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation.

Yes we can.

It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom through the darkest of nights.

Yes we can.

It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness.

Yes we can.

It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for the ballot; a President who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land.

Yes we can to justice and equality. Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity. Yes we can heal this nation. Yes we can repair this world.

Yes we can."

This idea of building on progressive history is one that I am particularly focused on right now because I am writing a book about how progressives and conservatives have essentially been engaged in the same fight since the beginning of our country.

Conservatives argue that elites ought to be trusted to run things, that too much democracy is dangerous, that equal rights is a pipe dream, and that our economic policy should maximize the wealthy getting all the benefits that will result in prosperity trickling down to the rest of us because of the brilliance of the market. Progressives have argued democracy and equality are essential values that should define our country, that government should be of, by and for the people, rather than governed by the elites, and that an economic system prioritizing higher wages and a large prosperous middle class is better than the trickle down system.

And when you look at our history, one pattern becomes overwhelmingly clear: when conservatives have been successful, the country has gotten truly messed up and when progressives have carried the day, we've moved forward as a nation.

The conservatives who defended slavery and Jim Crow, stopped women and poor people from voting, allowed the robber barons to run amuck, brought us the great depression, and have in our day, given us the Iraq War, unchecked global warming, massive inequity, and an economy teetering on the edge of collapse: those conservatives have hurt our country badly. The progressives who expanded the right to vote, ended slavery, broke up the big trusts, gave us the national parks system and cleaner air and water, brought us the minimum wage and social security and the GI Bill, ended Jim Crow, gave us health care for the old and poor: those progressives made our country a dramatically better place.

Building on that history is a great place for progressives to be.

One of the big questions for 2009 if Democrats win this election is if we look to the example of progressives in history and are bold in making change. Lincoln and the Radical Republicans in the 1860's not only won the civil war, but also ended slavery, passed three incredibly important and progressive constitutional amendments, gave millions of acres of farm land away to moderate income families through the Homestead Act, and started the land grant university system. The progressives of the Progressive Era in the early 1900's broke up the big trusts, gave us better food safety, started the national park system, gave us direct popular election of Senators, created the income tax and gave women their right to vote. The 1930's and 1940's ushered in a brand new financial regulatory system, ended child labor, gave us the minimum wage, gave millions of soldiers a free college education, passed labor law reform, gave electricity and good prices to farmers and desegregated the armed forces. The 1960's and early 1970's gave us the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, the war on poverty, OSHA, the EPA, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, Miranda rights and Roe vs. Wade.

These were eras of big, big changes that came in droves. What Democrats need to do if we win is to cast off the caution and defensiveness of recent decades, and be bold in pushing for the major changes this country needs. The country has been following a more conservative path for the last 35 years, and we are truly messed up as a result. We have very big problems to solve, and need to be bold and think big in order to solve them. Now is the time to make our own history.

Comments

[Herrington]

"I am writing a book about how progressives and conservatives have essentially been engaged in the same fight since the beginning of our country"

Nice, and selecting a time frame or a political epoch makes it more manageable, but the conservatives and the progressive are but the latest incarnation of an age old fight. That fight is between monarchical or oligarchic rule and the people. We have come far enough it seems that we have lost sight of the antithetical relationship between the rulers and the ruled.

And on many levels, the division between conservative and progressive reflects an over simplification of the costs and benefits resolving from the positions of either side. The fictional welfare queen versus the Enron executive. The rulers fear the ruled and visa versa. Both with reason.

The Enlightenment was a rational movement to address the millennia old contest between the rich and the poor, and the United States was a logical conclusion from enlightened thinking, is considered a product of the Enlightenment. At the risk of over simplifying, the mob can be trusted if the mob is informed. I have seen it, I have done it. The rich do not trust it because a great many of their enterprises will not survive examination.

To understand the Constitution is to understand the most earnest attempt to implement concepts of the enlightenment. To have a Constitutional scholar as President is to invest leadership a person who therefore classically understands the tensions between rich and poor.

[MagisterLudi]

OBama is incapable of producing any meaningful change. If Democrats ( or Americans) wanted change there was Kucinich, Paul, Green Party, Libretarians Communist Party etc. Americans Do NOT want MEANINGFUL change. Two middle- of- the -road Ivy league rich lawyers (Obama, Clinton) ain't gonna produce meaningful change. While both would be an improvement over Bush, the standard has been set pretty low.

You can bet your stock portfolio on that.

STOP brainwashing Democrats with this pro- Obama nonsense!

He's a conservative, Christian fundamentalist lawyer. Everything else is smoke. He, like Bush, will be controlled by his handlers to the detriment of the world.

[PioneerKing]

Is Sen. McCain change? How will he make things better?

[MagisterLudi]

Is Sen. McCain change?

Of course not. The only reason I would be voting for this crop of Democrats is to prevent the Supreme Courts from reaching Republican critical mass. Presidents go, but primitives like "Uncle Tom" Clarence Thomas fester on and on.

[FearlessFreep]

"Americans Do NOT want MEANINGFUL change."

Give it to them anyway.

[scandinavian]

:D

[nk007]

MagisterLudi:

So what is your solution? Just forget it and stay away from voting and wait for the Revolution?

[crossoverwriter]

What a brilliant speech! And Barack's speech on the economy at Cooper Union in NYC today proved that he is not just a poetic and visionary speaker, but his knowledge, both practical and historical, of law, business, trade, the market, and how it all fits together is far superior to Hillary, Bush, McCain--anyone.

He has the twin talent of vision and nuts and bolts know-how to weave it all together and recreate the market to move us all into a sensible and workable future.
Give him this chance--especially you white working class voters in PA, to help us, and help YOU!

[scandinavian]

well said.

[rmreddicks]

It would have been nice if Native Americans had had the power to say "Oh, no you don't!"

[scandinavian]

i admit missing them too and remain wondering why he did not mention native americans. maybe in another context... or is that the last tabu...

[paragrafH]

Me, too. But the genius of an Obama presidency is that he will be listening from the ground up. Right now he's trying to weave together all people in the country to have a stake in our collective future. His attention span is endless when it comes to this. As he said int he "More Perfect Union" speech, it is a mistake to think that things can't change -- that what is is static. This is a movement for change. I have no doubts whatsoever that any group or issue will ultimately be ignored. Give the guy some time to get there.

[LanosIceland]

That's exactly what I was just thinking. It wasn't that long ago since the last of their lands were taken away and redistributed. I wonder how they feel? Obama should also speak of them. They have suffered more than all. And they seem also to have been forgotten. More truth, clearer evidence that America needs to come to terms with past in order to define her future. The urgency of now. A President Barack Obama is the only option for this historic task and Bill Clinton is the voice that needs to endorse him. And he will.

[BusGreg]

Yes we can...........

but only if we vote and only if we put enough progressives in Congress to have the votes needed to once and for good put the brakes on the conservatives. By the way, one synonym for conservative is retrogressive.

[grendl]

What's hurt the progressive movement is the notion that everyone deserves everything.

This is the land of opportunity where ingenuity and acumen, and hard work earn reward. Where you can climb the socioeconomic ladder based on your gifts, although that ladder has been greased by those at the top, old moneyed bastards who don't much like obstructions to their penthouse views of the world.

But its important to remember people can climb from the rank and file, not from handouts, but based on sheer will and intellect. Charity is not Darwinian. Helping the homeless doesn't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint. But we do because we are endowed with a conscience in this society. It's the extent to which that charity is offered where the chasm between conservatives and progressive lies.

Some asking for handouts, genuinely need them, some are just lazy, and unwilling to work. The distinction should be made, something extremists on the left might dispute. We need conservative accountability, and progressive charity both in this society, but the tendency towards either becomes problematic when it travels too far in the direction of either end of the spectrum. Balance is the answer, but our society is always in flux, swinging pendulously back and forth, and thats the way it will probably continue. I don't think the left has to worry this election year, the worm has turned for the time being.

[EspritDeVoltaire]

Darwinian is not progressive, it is the strong survive and the weak ones cry. It is certainly not a theme for building a progressive society. You propound the ideas of a closet elitist.

[grendl]

That's my point.

Darwinian is the conservative point of view. And its not elitism to say that those who work hard and have talent earn their wealth. The strong do better than the weak.

I'm not in the closet about it. There needs to be a balance between the two. I'm not a conservative nor a progressive, just someone who sees that there is a need for both in society to keep eachother in check. Too much charity disenfranchises the talented, and provides little incentive for them to use their gifts. Thats why communism failed.

It was a progressive movement without personal accountability, and didn't count on the people at the top becoming elitists, as is the nature of the beast. It needs to be a system of checks and balances, both conservative and progressive ideals coexisting in the same society or else you either have aristocracy run wild, or the unwashed masses, talented or not, hardworking and lazy reaping the same benefits.

[rmreddicks]

Exception proving the rule? We're talking entire classes of people. Not some lucky bastard. The progressive movement has never put forth the notion that everyone deserves everything. The progressive movement has put forth the idea that the actual producers of wealth (especially as opposed to speculators) should be able to share in that wealth equitably. And equitably does not mean equally. For instance, owners, manipulators, and managers of wealth don't get to make four hundred times the earnings of the actual producers of that wealth.

[grendl]

See Gordon Gekko's greed speech in "Wall Street".

As despicable as it is, its true in its brutally Darwinian assertions. Greed does cut, and clarify, and is the reason this country became a world power. People braved oceans, and hardship, and persecution not merely for religious freedoms, or freedom of speech, but for economic opportunity. You think manifest destiny would've been realized as quickly in this nation had gold not been discovered in California?

The spectrum of progressives is wide in scope, and there exist within that spectrum the fringe members who tend toward the shared wealth of all tenets communism tried to realize.

There must exist incentive to excel, in this country, without fear that those rewards will be taken away and given to the undeserving. And there must be a failsafe to make sure those who do excel do not abuse their power, making four hundred times the earnings of the workers, as you say.

Both are necessary.

[BeeOplentee]

Yes we will...

[MagisterLudi]

Obama is pathetically naive novice with a butch voice as his only qualification.

1.OBAMA IS A CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST with racist overtones.

2.OBAMA is A WAR MONGER: He voted NO to on Kerry Amendment to withdraw troops from Iraq.

3. OBAMA IS A CONSERVATIVE: Pimped for credit card companies by voted NO to limit credit card companies charging outrageous interest. If you're paying more than 20A% interest on your credit cards, thank Barak.

[SteveClements]

Hillary is definitely NOT a progressive. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn represents Countrywide while not engaging in union busting. Hillary and Bill continue to benefit from their longstanding ties to Wal-Mart. She sat in on board meetings where union busting tactics were discussed. Wal-Mart is facing the largest sex discrimination suit ever. Just this year her husband's foundation received $500,000 from Wal-Mart. Do you think they would do that for anyone who couldn't be trusted to fight for their interests. Do we want her naming appointments to Department of labor and to NLRB?
Obama- President
Richardson or Sibelius- VP
Edwards- Sec of Labor

[MagisterLudi]

Clinton President
Robert Reich-Sec. of Labor
Albright- Sec. State
Gore- Sec. of Interior

[silverball]

yes we can.....