I'm pleased to see Pamela Gerloff's voice raised on behalf of the Dignity movement. Thank you, Pamela, for your wise words.
In February, when Barack Obama was at the height of his winning streak, Tom Foreman of CNN's Washington Bureau, wrote:
"One highly experienced Democratic insider told me that the Old Guard of the party is utterly confused by the appeal of Obama -- by the oceans of young people, moderates, and independents flocking to his camp. They don't know what to make of these new Democrats."
Foreman explained it this way: the Clinton and Obama campaigns are speaking two entirely different languages. Clinton's is "the language of experience, hard work, traditional Democratic values, and the rough and tumble politics that has come to dominate Washington"; Obama's, the language of "Hope. Dreams. Unity. Yes, we can." Foreman's assertion: to the new wave of voters, whose "mother tongue grew out of Obamaland...only [Obama's] message is getting through." Simply put, Obama speaks their language and Clinton doesn't.
Recently, some among the Old Guard have attributed Senator Obama's success to such factors as race or favorable press coverage, but Foreman's analysis seems more apt. Clinton's showings in Ohio and Texas -- apparently garnered by adopting reptilian brain language that played heavily on the public's primitive, survival-response emotions -- arguably came not from among the country's "new wave of voters," but rather among old-time Democrats who, in the final moments, decided to stay the course with the ways of the past.
The recent back and forth in the delegate race -- with Clinton gaining ground in Ohio, Rhode Island, and Texas, then losing it again in Wyoming and Missisippi -- has not changed the fact that the two Democratic candidates do speak fundamentally different languages; nor does it change the language that the new wave of voters speak. Clinton may have prevailed in recent contests by arousing primal fears about security and survival, but the new, younger and more independent voters aren't buying the old fight-and-frighten language. They've seen and heard enough to know that a global climate based on fear and aggression just doesn't work. It has not produced global peace, harmony, or prosperity. It has not made the world a safer place. And even Old Guard Democrats have lately been forced to acknowledge that such an approach, as it spills over into wider aspects of the campaign, could prove disastrous to their party this November.
What still needs to be realized, however, is that the reason the fight-and-frighten approach hasn't worked is because it is not based on an essential human value. That value is dignity. Dignity for All.
The language Barack Obama speaks is not only about hope and possibility and a worldwide movement for change. It is about dignity. Dignity for All is the change the new voters seek. As Robert W. Fuller, author of All Rise: Somebodies, Nobodies, and the Politics of Dignity, has written,
"Dignity permeates [Obama's] speeches, informs his policies, and is evident in his manner. Obama is a herald and exemplar of the politics of dignity....For blacks and whites, for men and women, for gays and straights, for young and old, for rich and poor, and for immigrants and the native-born. Dignity is also extended to...liberals and conservatives -- and to other nations and their leaders. Americans are ... ready to support a leader committed to building a world of dignity for all."
Although some "dignity bloopers" have come out of the Obama camp, Senator Obama has nonetheless endeavored to seek the high road, while yet standing up for his own and his supporters' dignity.
Fuller notes that dignity is "more than good manners, respect, and civility," defining it instead as "the absence of indignity" and asserting that it is "the mounting indignities of American life that have drawn people to Obama's politics of dignity. They know that indignities inflicted on the world have diminished America's stature. They know that the indignities they and their fellow citizens are suffering at home are sapping the American spirit."
The Democratic party would do well to study this language of hope, possibility, and dignity, because it's not just a language, it is an articulation of a new consciousness that is trying hard now to emerge on the planet. This new consciousness understands that hope and possibility are central to a nation's capacity to change. It also understands that humanity can no longer live without according dignity to all. In a world where technology can destroy the planet and access to it continues to proliferate, dignity for all is not a luxury but a necessity. No longer can we afford to give dignity to some, but not to everyone.
It remains to be seen whether or not the Old Guard and its fight-and-frighten political traditions will prevail in this election cycle. But even if they manage to eke by in this one, those ways of thinking and acting won't likely stand a chance by the next round four years hence. The new voters' call to replace "the same old politics" with less aggressive, attacking, and divisive campaigning -- and governance, once elected -- is not merely about style; it is a call for our nation's leaders to hold dignity for all as a fundamental value and to model their campaigns, their leadership approaches, the governments they will head, and indeed, their whole lives on that value.
The bottom line is: the new voters want something new. They want a genuine and lasting change toward dignity, and the hope that it can actually happen. If the Democratic Party wants to win future elections -- let alone this year's presidential race -- the Old Guard may need to learn that language, and not just speak it but live it.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

I'm pleased to see Pamela Gerloff's voice raised on behalf of the Dignity movement. Thank you, Pamela, for your wise words.
Re: Senator Clinton redefining Senator Obama to the public, planting seeds of doubt, and cloaking dirty politics as "fighting"--and the people buying it
I agree that this is a challenge for Obama. It is always the challenge a dignitarian faces in a rankist world (that's the word for the opposite of dignitarianism: rankism--abuse of the power that comes with rank). It can be challenging for Obama to defend false or unfair attacks and not sound to some as if he, too, is attacking--because people are not accustomed to the dignity/rankism analysis. They don't always distinguish between what is standing up for one's own dignity and related values--such as truth and respect for oneself and others--and what is actually attack or even rankism. (I've noticed the press often has trouble making this distinction.) It can also be challenging to not just "go negative" himself, as some are advising him, because if he doesn't ,some people think he looks weak.
What I would suggest Obama do is make explicit his commitment to principles of dignity and the politics of dignity. Until now, he has mostly left this inferred. He has talked of a new kind of politics and building each other up, not tearing down, etc. But he needs to speak more directly about the principle of dignity and his unwavering commitment to abide by the politics of dignity and reject the politics of indignity. He can articulate what that means, e.g. not treating your political opponents or the voting public with indignity, and establishing policies that ensure dignity for all people.
He can say quite clearly that if people really want a new kind of politics, then vote for him and the politics of dignity. If they want the same old politics as usual, don't vote for a politics of dignity. That's the choice, plain and simple. Then explicitly talk about dignity as a guiding principle and a governing value that the world is waiting for America to adopt. That is what would restore our country to its true leadership role. (It would also make America safer. When you treat others with dignity, they are less inclined to turn against you or subvert your good-faith efforts to build a world that is in everyone's best interests.) Obama is uniquely positioned to offer that in this campaign because he has clearly been attempting to live by those principles and operationalize them within a context where that is very hard to do. If he explicitly turns this into a kind of "principle of dignity" approach--rather like Gandhi's "principle of non-violence", this puts Obama in a strong position, not a weak one. Just look at what Gandhi's principle of non-violence was able to accomplish--in India, and in social movements since that have adopted the same approach. All of us who value dignity can also rally around that principle, speak about it during this campaign and in the future, and vote for those candidates we believe best offer that. That's one of the ways the dignity movement will take off.
Politics of fear, attack ads, negative campigns: These are all means to plant doubt in the voters minds. Redefine the candidate in your own image, negative, take him down, make every one of his actions as meaningless. It works. It will work for ever. There is no winning for the side that just sits around and about prides in its puriy and the impurity of the opposing side.
Has anyone ever worked somewhere where a lot of women are working. They specilize in backstabbing, politics of destruction by the rumor mill. The male politicians play by the same rules.
Obama's refusal to tell the truth about her political ways, her lies, her destructive history, Use of IRS , FBI aginst the innocent Travel office emplyee, only lets her define herself as selfless, honest, experienced, compassionate while she paints him as words only, inexperienced, liar, dishonest , not trustworthy, usual chicago politician, of doubtful religious bakground, and his followers as a crowd of fools. His fools will vote for her anyway, while her fools will not.
Once these impressions take hold who will win at the convention?
As a voting Dem for 26 yrs- they have failed and proven their allegience to entities not interested in OUR Nations Prinicples.
Look at Michigan- a 'blue' state- they've done a 'heckova Job' here. We are the Canary inthe Coalmine and the Dems are the ones who've let the Fumes over take US!
'Experince' is a word that holds no real value until it is taken in Context.
the Dems have not only caved to the Inc's they have begun blanantly Paving the way for their FAcist Doctrine.
Dems'' still trying to keep Roe v Wade on the books, still trying to improve living conditions for our citizens and their children, and parents, still working to keep the envirnoment viable for our existence. Where th eHell have you been - at the Board meetings orking to defeat US?
This Ol' Dem sees Criminals in our Midst. The days of buying you rbullshit Rhetoric and fake dissent are over - the blood is on your hands too. so Hillary an dmac can take their Corp expereince and shove it- WE are not longer comsumers of their Betrayal.
Obama was not my first choice- bu tsinc ewe are still stuck with this Rigged Election Process- he is th eonly one worth supporting in hopes of a new dawn for this new millenia.
we need to revamp the election process (we have the technology), limit Terms (to eliminate the politics of greed) and we need to hold our Public Officials responsible for the intentional MALPRACTICE they have committed, with malice for Free Speech,Free Press and Free Market ideologies. the corner stones to our Democracy, OUR Rights!
Hell Haveth No Fury like an Ol' Dems' scorn- We ahve been betrayed by those who have hidden in our midst. Treason War crimes an dCrimes agaisnt Humanity will encompass the 'Demcoratic' party Facade too! Let them stand Trial with their fellow Corp Operatives!
Purplegirl, I must agree with you. Many people in our country would like to be done with the baby boomers. We started the fire I don't care what Billy Joe; says. We just got tired of pounding our head against a wall after all of the assasinations. I know I was burned out. I was scared for my country when Nixon was dictator but I am very scared now. We may have the national security card pulled on us so that we cannot install our next President of the United States.
I hate to say it but I would vote for anyone other than the Republican nominee. Listen to that old stuck in Viet Nam mentality which has stuck with our proposed war monger in chief.
Come together everyone we must not allow 4 more years of fear and smear.
Nice post Ms. Gerloff, I like your perspective.
We will have the dignity we had when Hillary Clinton is president. Does anyone here remember that dignity?
Peace and Prosperity were here, and we lived in it. And we could have it again. However, many people want "change". Most of the people who desire this change didn't experience the Clinton prosperity. They see change as meaning different from what we have now. They get this perception from those who keep attempting to mix Hillary in with Bush.
The Clinton years and the Bush years were diametricly opposed. The two administrations, and the welfare of the nation in eaches time stand in stark contrast to one another.
Right now we are at war, we have a huge deficit, unemployment is approaching recession numbers, and our reputation around the world is seriously tarnished.
During the Clinton years we had almost constant peace (a breif stay in somalia to try to get food to starving people, and a stint in Kosovo to stop genecide), we ran a budget surplus for the first time in 50 years, we had a labor shortage (companies were offering signing bonuses for even manual labor jobs because there were more jobs than people to fill them), and we were respected around the world with the exception of a few terrorist nations.
But then, instead of electing Al Gore, a bunch of people decided they wanted change.
George Bush, although relatively inexperienced, was new, and different, and represented that change. Many people said they wanted George Bush because morals were important to them, and they fealt that George Bush was a character of greater moral standard than Clinton.
Of course, what many of them didn't realize is that other than an ilicit affair, all the unfounded accusations (which served to sully the Clinton's reputation) came from the very political party that George Bush represented.
Now we have a situation in 2008 which is very similar. No, I don't draw a comparison between Obama and Bush. I don't hate Obama and I would have to seriously hate someone to make that comparison.
But the situation is similar, you have a group of people who are screaming change for the sake of change. These people are influencing a lot of other people in a second group who for the most part are getting their information from the first group.
And what are the tactics of the first group? First they start with yellow journalism. They continuously produce and publish tainted information and then pass it off as if they're giving fair and accurate accounts ( for example Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh, or in this case Huffington Post). Then they come with a steady and relentless barrage of accusations, unfounded or not, if you point the finger at someone enough they start to look guilty. In the ninetys the Republicans had to create or at least foment these accusations. Those who seek to injure the Clintons today just say "look at all the accusations! they must be dirty!, and basicaly recycle the same trash.
Then, after you've sufficiently tainted your opponants reputation, you start talking about how your guy is a moraly upstanding, or in this case, more dignified individual so as to draw a contrast.
In the past these have been the tactics of the Republican party. Not so today, people who call themselves Democrats are using the same un-dignified approach.
And, in the '90s we also got NAFTA, media consolidation, the loss of the majority in the House and the Senate, etc, etc. Bill Clinton just happened to be president when the dot com boom began and got out of office just before it crashed. Bill actually had very little to do with the good economy of the '90s.
Currently the Clinton campaign is showing a personality disorder that is very disturbing. Most of America is through with the "politics of personal destruction" and want some dignity in our political discourse. That is a lot of the 'change' that we are looking for, both in our national politics and in our foreign relations. The Clinton campaign, especially the last few weeks, is not displaying 'dignity', they are displaying only desperation. Members of the Clinton team can't even treat each other with dignity. Is that the way a Hillary presidency would be run, constant chaos, no planning ahead and a refusal to listen to diverse opinions? Inquiring minds want to know!
I understand what you're saying, and I also remember the "Clinton years" as being peaceful and prosperous.
But can't you see the flaw in this kind of thinking?
1) There's no going back. We can't elect someone based on nostalgia. Things have changed in the world.
2) Bill Clinton isn't going to be president again. I believe you are like many Clinton supporters who secretly seem to believe that Hillary will be some sort of puppet-president for "the first man" who will play the role of secret, behind the scenes president. How else could you assume that electing HRC will bring a return to the Clinton years?
She's voted with Bush and the republican party on so many really important issues, and she doesn't want to talk about that. She's not Bill Clinton. Look at the kind of campaign she's running. Look at her actual record, analyze her actual experience. Consider her making fun of Obama's message of hope and change and ask yourself if she mocked her own husband when he ran as the guy from Hope who would bring change.
It's tempting to try to recreate the past when the present is dominated by people like Bush and Cheney, but if you look at the situation realistically, with a less nostalgic eye, you might see the error in your thinking.
You seem to forget that it was Clinton who laid the groundwork for the current debacle. NAFTA, repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, etc., etc., etc.,
"In our hearts and in our laws, we must treat all our people with fairness and dignity, regardless of their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. . . ."
Bill Clinton
pause "as far as I know"
That's true, and Bill Clinton spoke the same way to everyone. Have you noticed how Obama speaks differently to a black crowd than a white one?
Everything is different. His rhetoric, his posture, his cadence. I don't know what this means, but I find it unsettling.
A freind pointed it out, and then I really began to notice it. Look for your self.
Obama is genuine. He thinks about the people he's talking to and he really listens to them. He's not like slick willy, he's the anti-slick willy.
I speak differently to construction workers than I do to political junkies...
Making an effort to adjust for a communication (2 ways)... rather than just a rant... is another form of allowing 'dignity' to take the lead.
Why, do you assume the construction workers are ignorant? If so, they probably think you're full of it.
... I am a stone mason... and construct daily...
could your assumption be a hint that you either feel a prejudicial attitude yourself... or were you just itching for a conflict?
The Clinton campaign has turned many off by the smear, fear, racism and sexism tactics employed.
The sad part is, as Rove showed with "fear, smear, and queers" in '04 - it works. Too bad there isn't an IQ test to vote.
Many of us are sick of the political circus - I hope and pray it's a majority.
Thank you for your lesson on dignity.....we as a people need it more than ever. It will be America's loss if Barack is not elected president. His candidacy will make me proud to be an American once again. What a disaster these last eight years have been. It's frightening how ignorant and vile the status quo has become.
Exactly.
"But even if they manage to eke by in this one, those ways of thinking and acting won't likely stand a chance by the next round four years hence. "
While I agree with you on point, there's a gnawing sense of dread. Obama has said this run is a one-shot deal -- he won't become a habitual presidential candidate. When I think that -- should Obama not get the nomination and subsequently win the general -- we may not see someone as intelligent, galvanizing or promising for a very long time, that makes his candidacy even more important.
Agreed. And I would add that Obama also asks something of us, something which speaks to our basic human need to be useful, to be helpful, to be better than we were before. For so long we've been asked to buy the best deal; the candidate who promises that which we think we need. The brands might be different but the idea is the same. Obama asks us not to buy him, but to partner up with him. I dig that.
"Obama asks us not to buy him, but to partner up with him. "
I see partnership as central to the dignity movement--and what you said about the "basic human need to be useful, to be helpful, to be better than we were before." That's the essence of dignity. Calling forth the best in each and every one of us and allowing that to express in the world. It takes partnership to create that--to enable that to happen. It takes partnership to create a "dignitarian" society. Dignitarian leaders understand that and call forth that partnership, thereby helping to facilitate the expression of dignity not only for all but in all.
Dignity is all well and good but she is redefining him to the public and they are buying now. She has planted the seds of doubt. At the same time she has cloaked her dirty politics as a FIghter. And people are buying it.
[Sorry, this comment, posted previously, was meant in Reply to one by zeusthunderbolt, but I neglected to hit the "Reply"" button--maybe the moderator will place this in the correct location.]
Re: Senator Clinton redefining Senator Obama to the public, planting seeds of doubt, and cloaking dirty politics as "fighting"--and the people buying it
I agree that this is a challenge for Obama. It is always the challenge a dignitarian faces in a rankist world (that's the word for the opposite of dignitarianism: rankism--abuse of the power that comes with rank). It can be challenging for Obama to defend false or unfair attacks and not sound to some as if he, too, is attacking--because people are not accustomed to the dignity/rankism analysis. They don't always distinguish between what is standing up for one's own dignity and related values--such as truth and respect for oneself and others--and what is actually attack or even rankism. (I've noticed the press often has trouble making this distinction.) It can also be challenging to not just "go negative" himself, as some are advising him, because if he doesn't ,some people think he looks weak.
What I would suggest Obama do is make explicit his commitment to principles of dignity and the politics of dignity. Until now, he has mostly left this implicit. He has talked of a new kind of politics and building each other up, not tearing down, etc. But he needs to speak more directly about the principle of dignity and his unwavering commitment to abide by the politics of dignity and reject the politics of indignity. He can articulate what that means, e.g. not treating your political opponents or the voting public with indignity, and establishing policies that ensure dignity for all people.
He can say quite clearly that if people really want a new kind of politics, then vote for him and the politics of dignity. If they want the same old politics as usual, don't vote for a politics of dignity. That's the choice, plain and simple. Then explicitly talk about dignity as a guiding principle and a governing value that the world is waiting for America to adopt. That is what would restore our country to its true leadership role. (It would also make America safer. When you treat others with dignity, they are less inclined to turn against you or subvert your good-faith efforts to build a world that is in everyone's best interests.)
Obama is uniquely positioned to offer that in this campaign because he has clearly been attempting to live by those principles and operationalize them within a context where that is very hard to do. If he explicitly turns this into a kind of "principle of dignity" approach--rather like Gandhi's "principle of non-violence", this puts Obama in a strong position, not a weak one. Just look at what Gandhi's principle of non-violence was able to accomplish--in India, and in social movements since that have adopted the same approach. All of us who value dignity can also rally around that principle, speak about it during this campaign and in the future, and vote for those candidates we believe best offer that. That's one of the ways the dignity movement will take off.
Invitation vs. invocation...
another dignity...
Michael Dudley is the son of a preacher man. He's a born-again Christian with two family...
Last night's all new "Saturday Night Live"
On Friday, Barack Obama publicly raised the possibility of helping Hillary Clinton pay...
It should come as no surprise that Bill O'Reilly has always been a screamer, but...
Today, May 10, marks the first day of what the Obama campaign is calling its "Vote For...
You may have thought your prom night went badly, but Marche Taylor,...
Now that the outcome of the battle for the Democratic nomination...
Leave it to the tone deaf GOP to find a way of attaching themselves to this election...
As a lawyer might say (OK, I am one), I have no personal knowledge of whether John or...
Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is most likely in a lot of hot...
At the same time that former West Wingers...
First of all, you moms are already Hot Chicks! We want you to embrace...
Posted March 14, 2008 | 06:07 PM (EST)