A Politics for the Future

The results are in from Super Tuesday, and it's pretty much a tie between Clinton and Obama -- which, as I see it, is remarkable testimony to Obama's surge in the past two or three weeks and his chances for success in the continuing campaign. People are really beginning to catch on to his message, and to trust that he means what he says.

What we're watching, I hope, is the beginning of the end of the old politics: a lot of favors were returned in these primaries, and a lot of cronies called on for support. The old party machine, controlled now by the Clintons, is still wheezing away at their behest. But not for much longer, I suspect, as Obama continues to inspire hope in a new politics for the future. Had his momentum started just a little sooner, yesterday's result might well have been quite different. After a couple of millennia on planet Earth, the old model of politics looks tired and superannuated, that notion of rule whereby power rests in the hands of a single person or some kind of an elite, to be exercised in order to govern the rest. It managed to eke out its remaining years through the twentieth century, but its survival into the twenty-first has brought with it little but disaster.

It's time for a change -- and not the skin-deep, rhetorical change that has been much touted by politicians of all stripes and colors in recent months. The change I'm talking about is nothing less than a radical paradigm shift from that old way of thinking/acting/being to a newer one. This is the kind of change, I believe, that is demanded by the great unease and dissatisfaction manifested in the pitiful approval ratings not only of the "decider" currently "in charge" in the Oval Office, but also of our elected representatives and leaders in the Congress of the United States. It was foolhardy, perhaps, to have hoped for serious change with the election of those slim Democratic majorities a couple of years ago -- because those new majorities have been thinking/acting/being not very much differently from the old ones.

The fact of the matter is that it's not just a few contested issues but the human species that's in crisis. It's a different world we have created for ourselves, in the twenty-first century. First, there are now too many of us to live in the old way and maintain neighborly tolerance. Territory is at a premium, and resources are increasingly in contention. We have learned, as a species, about human freedom and human rights; each of us demands our own, and no one wants to sacrifice any part of his or hers. Each of us demands respect for our individuality, and we each resist in our own way every attempt to tell us how to live our lives. Why should I surrender up "my money" for the benefit of others? Let them take responsibility for themselves.

The second factor, as I see it, complicating and adding to the first, is the de facto shift of power from the establishment into the hands of the individual. This shift has been facilitated primarily by the unprecedented advances of technology over the past three decades, including the rapid and ubiquitous availability of information, and the means to broadcast it. Computers, along with a myriad of powerful personal electronic gadgets, mean that we are each able to become our own politician, our own journalist, our own legislator. In the old order, information -- and the power that went along with it -- could be held close, controlled, dispensed at will. Today, that model is no longer operative. We are no longer controllable in the same ways as before.

More than ever in the past, then, we can be governed only by our own consent, and human nature is such as to rebel against any and all restrictions on its absolute freedom. This is why politicians who presume to possess the "solutions" to our problems may no longer be relevant or useful. The old model was characterized by paternalism: entrust me with the power and I'll restore the peace and prosperity that elude us. Father knows best -- or, in the context of the current election campaign, Hillary knows best, or John McCain knows best...

This is why I see in Barack Obama the best hope for the future not only of the country but the world. What I hear from him is less that old mantra -- Give me the power -- and more the understanding that the new model will need to be about empowering others, opening up debate and discussion, and governing through mutual understanding and genuine compassion, bottom-up rather than top-down -- which I suppose was the original idea of "democracy." How far we have come from that!

I realize that I'll be accused of pie-in-the-sky idealism. My answer is to point to the worldwide, increasingly disastrous symptoms of failure of the old model. The Bush experience, as I see it, has been its logical, destructive, and long-overdue apotheosis. It's an old, dreadfully familiar question we are now faced with: If not now, when? Our future as a planet and a species depends on our ability to create a new paradigm, more appropriate to the realities of a twenty-first century world. And I think that Obama has begun to offer a glimpse of what that might look like. It's multi-faceted and multi-ethnic, not unitary. It embraces rather than separates, is multi-directional rather than linear, and it involves more risk than certainty.

So here's the question: will we stake everything on a retreat into the proven failures of the past? Or do we have the guts to take that "leap of faith" into an unknowable future?

Comments

[DavidPalmer]

Peter, I said in my last comment that I voted for Obama, but then I read in the LA Times yesterday that I hadn't. Thanks to Los Angeles County's cleverly designed ballot, I was tricked into voting for...nobody!

After voting on Tuesday, I heard a rumor that independent voters, even if they specifically requested and filled in a Democratic ballot, had to also, redundantly, fill in a little bubble on the card stating which party they were voting for, or their vote wouldn't count. They fact that they got a receipt that said they voted in the Democratic primary notwithstanding. Nobody at the polling place had said anything about this, but I wanted to double-check. I looked in the Voter Information booklet I had gotten, and there was the mention of the second bubble, in the instructions to people submitting Absentee Ballots. I had voted in person, so I was happy to know that my vote had in fact been counted. Until I read in the Times yesterday that it hadn't. Neither mine nor about 100,000 other votes by independents.

So last night I sent a check to Obama's campaign. My vote may not count in California, but maybe my donation can help him win delegates in the other states.

[DavidPalmer]

Peter, I agree w/ everything you've said about Obama, which is why I voted for him on Tuesday. But as much as I like him, if Hillary ends up being the Democratic candidate, I'll vote for her in November. The last thing I would want to see is another Republican in the White House after what we've put up with these past 7 years.

[1dogs2]

What I find most encouraging is that Obama has ALREADY changed the tenor of this political season. The Clintons have had to back away from race-baiting as a tactic because it quickly became apparent that it was counterproductive. The ugly whisper campaign spreading lies about Obama's religion and patriotism appears to have been ineffective. Time will tell whether such changes are enduring or temporary -- but it's a start.

[AlanMaki]

In my opinion, "the politics of the future" will have to be based on the class struggle where working people define and articulate their problems which are by and large the result of big-business dominating everything in this country--- including politics.

Issues need to be "framed" in a way which brings forward real solutions working people are experiencing.

We need socialized health care; a real living (non-poverty) minimum wage; free college education; and we need peace, not dirty imperialist wars for oil and regional domination which has resulted in the robbery at the pumps the result of wars that working people fight and die in as big-business profits.

I am sick and tired of politics being reported as if this is a sporting event where the votes are counted as if we are scoring a football or baseball game.

For working people there is much more at stake than what candidate can be the other.

[maxreason]

I agree with you Peter. We have a chance to change the way the system can, and should, work. When lies are spread about a candidate it is accepted as "politics" and this creates a system that turns voters off. The less people involved, the more the establishment keeps control.
Barak speaks in "we". Other candidates talk in
"I".
Imagine a President that we do not need to be ashamed of and thinks of the United States, not just corporations that helped get them elected.
I am an independent and I am voting for Obama. I have read his books, Hilary's books and several other candidates publications. Barak's life has given him the best overall vision to be able to unite our country and move us through the troubled times ahead. He will surround himself with the top talent he needs to do the job, not just pay back political cronies or lobbyist that he is beholden to because of campaign contributions. It is not about him, it is about us. Any other choice in this election is for the same old and bitter fight in Washington. This will not be easy.( just read the reactions that will follow in this blog thread). People do not let power go without a fight. But we have a real chance at changing the dynamics in Washington.
I know several other Independent voters and they have all said they will not vote for Hillary if Barak is eliminated. We would not even vote for her if he was her VP. It is not about a women candidate, it is about Hilary Clinton as the candidate and all that goes along with it. We would just wait until he ran in 2012. I for one am tired of the same old fight. It is time.
Obama 08