Barack Obama is offering Americans dignity, and they're grabbing it with both hands. Dignity permeates his speeches, informs his policies, and is evident in his manner. Whether he intended to or not, Obama has become a herald of the politics of dignity.
But dignity for whom? 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. Obama also reaches out to both sides of the aisle -- liberals and conservatives -- and to other nations and their leaders. Americans, eager to move beyond the fractiousness of identity politics and to end the standoff between libertarian and egalitarian ideologies, are lining up in support. They are ready for a leader committed to building a world of dignity for all.
What exactly is the dignity that people crave? It's more than good manners, respect, and civility. It's the absence of indignity. The American people 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.
Barack Obama's campaign has been called a "phenomenon," one with the potential to swell into a movement. But to realize its promise, a movement must evolve from a call for change to a plan for removing the obstacles that stand in the way of that change. How can the energy that has crystallized around Obama's candidacy be effectively focused to fight the indignities of everyday life?
As the history of the women's movement shows, a movement can't deliver without identifying what it's against. The introduction of the word "sexism" provided the lens that brought gender inequity into focus and made it indefensible.
To fight back against indignity, we need to root out what causes it. The cause of indignity is not power, nor is it power differences. It is rather the abuse of power. To oppose indignity, we do not have to eliminate differences in power, nor the differences in rank that merely reflect them.
Rank is a useful tool of organization. When it's exercised with proper regard for the dignity of subordinates, we not only accept rank differences, we celebrate the people whose accomplishments have earned our respect. No one is more admired or loved than someone of high rank who treats everyone, regardless of rank, with dignity.
But, abuses of rank have no place in a dignitarian world and must go. Taking a page from the women's movement, if we are to combat such abuses effectively, we must first give them a name. Fortunately, there's a word at hand. By analogy with racism, sexism, and ageism, abuse of the power inherent in rank is rankism. Once named, you see it everywhere.
The outrage over corrupt executives is indignation over rankism. Sexual abuse by clergy is rankism. Elder abuse in life care facilities is rankism. The power of lobbyists to subvert the people's will is rankism. Photos of the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners gave the world a look at rankism's arrogant face. Hurricane Katrina made visible rankism's most common victims -- the sick, the elderly, the poor.
Like racism, rankism has its most debilitating impact on those lacking the protections of social rank -- the poor. And nowhere is rankism more dangerous than in foreign relations. International terrorism has multiple, complex causes, but one factor we can address is rankism between nations. There is no fury like that borne of chronic humiliation. Senator Obama understands that a vital part of a strong defense is not giving offense in the first place.
Rankism distorts personal relationships, erodes the will to learn, taxes economic productivity, and stokes international enmities. The effects on its victims are like those of racism and sexism on minorities and women. But, unlike these better-known isms, rankism knows no limits and plays no favorites. So long as anyone's dignity is at risk, everyone's is. With its inclusiveness, Obama's politics of dignity has struck a chord.
Before they'll march for justice, people will stand up for dignity. Obama has got them on their feet, and that's a start. The next step--building a dignitarian society -- is the work of several generations, but the hopes for a peaceful and prosperous twenty-first century rest on our taking it.
Robert W. Fuller is the author of All Rise: Somebodies, Nobodies, and the Politics of Dignity (2006). He is co-author, with Pamela Gerloff, of Dignity for All: Rankism Unmasked (forthcoming, Spring 2008).
Almost all Americans want what's best for our country. On that we can all agree. Our disagreements thus center more on the means and not the ends. Since we share the same ultimate goal (peace and prosperity), can't we disagree over the means without questioning the motives, or patriotism, or parentage of our opponents?
The same principle applies internationally. To paraphrase Sting: The Iranians, North Koreans, Chinese, and Russians love their children too. We may disagree (vehemently at times) with their leaders, but there is never any reason to demonize their people as freedom hating, children beating, puppy killing subhumans.
In short, it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Thank you for providing a coherent lexicon for this very basic idea.
I have personally never seen so much energy, positiveness and hope and inspiration as I've seen this past year in the ever growing support for Obama.
Those against Obama are in fear. They fear the empowerment of the people, the uni ting over division and the man who wants all people to have diginity. The powers that be fear him taking away their power and for him to have it. And for him to use it for good and not bad like those in power now do.
But, you cannot stop a movement and yes, the Obama campaign has grown into a movement.
Every Democratic Party platform embraces tolerance and embraces diversity and eschews racism and bigotry. Senator Barack Obama has been the victim of vicious, hateful, racist, religiously bigoted email and whisper campaigns. Senator Clinton’s campaign has on multiple occasions aided and abetted this attack. Several Clinton campaign officials, including Bill Clinton, have attempted to malign Obama’s reputation. When given a chance to ‘denounce and reject’ the hateful email campaign, Senator Clinton qualified her response (“not that I know of”) just enough to stoke the suspicions of those who stand gullibly ready to believe the email slander.
Senator Clinton compounded the insult and injury by effectively endorsing John McCain over Barack Obama. Beyond making a great attack ad for the GOP, she has eliminated her own ability to campaign for Senator Obama when he becomes the Democratic nominee.
So, is there any principle the Democratic Party loves more than it loves the Clintons? What does the Democratic Party stand for?
Decision time Democrats: Hope for Change with Obama or keep rolling in the mud with the Clintons.
In the wake of her comments of the last week, Senator Hillary Clinton should abandon her Presidential Campaign. In fact she should probably resign her Senate seat. Endorsing the Republican candidate over Senator Obama and casting aspersions on Senator Obama's patriotism and religion are tactics we expect from certain Republican political advisers. We do not expect them someone who would ask us to vote for her for President.
A petition made by Obama supporters to be sent to the DNC
stating that if Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic Nominee for
the presidential election, you will either:
a) abstain from voting in the general election
or
b) a third-party-candidate during the general election.
Here's the link: http://www.petitiononline.com/obama725/petition.html
Checked out your profile and read some of your other posts. Of course you're free to write whatever you choose with any tone you choose, but I don't think the angry rhetoric and name calling helps to move our national conversation forward. Robert Fuller (and Barack Obama, for that matter) are advocating a more mutually respectful and conciliatory dialogue that actually holds out the hope of America (or at least a majority of Americans) beginning to move forward together again.
Disagreement is invaluable in a democracy, but it doesn't have to be disagreeable.
Look at the decline of the US currency. A dollar is now worth less than a Canadian Dollar, less than 100 yen! We have a national debt of almost 10 trillion dollars, national credit card debt of almost a trillion, and the national mortgage debt went up by almost that amount this year.
The mortgage debt is especially scary because US property values are trending 75% above historical norms. This means that whatever your house is worth, 3/7ths of is is phantom gains. Now take 4/7ths of your house value, and compare it to your outstanding mortgage (or mortgages), if the mortgages are higher, you are in the red!
Those scary forclosure rates? Those are the tip of the iceberg, and meanwhile people continue to borrow like there is no tomorrow.
To survive as a nation, we are going to have to completely change the way we live, and that is going to take a leader, not a politician. That is why we need Obama, not Clinton. Hope is all we have left, and just like Pandora, we are going to have to pray that it is worth it.
I really do not think there was a whole lot of dignity to all of the character attacks Obama has leveled on Hillary Clinton and the underhanded ways his campaign has targeted associates of Hillary as racists, conveniently after every one of his electoral losses. Especially when you consider that the only outrage Obama had showed against “so-called” racist statements was against his opponent, but never against Reverend Wright…until Rev Wright’s anti-American and anti-White statements became an issue. This shows without a doubt that Obama has a very convenient outrage about racism. He feigns outrage against his opponent and remains silent and continues to have a 20 year relationship with a confirmed racist.
Does calling Hillary (D) Punjab sound dignified to you?
Does Obama attacking Hillary over NAFTA (conveniently while in Ohio) while his campaign is telling Canada not to believe his words (just words) sound dignified to you?
Does Obama’s direct denials (some call them lies) of his campaigns involvement with Canada sound dignified to you?
Does Obama’s “Harry & Louis” lying attack ads sound dignified to you?
Does Obama’s creation of Spanish language ads calling Hillary “shameless”, which is considered a slur against females in the Latino community, sound dignified to you?
Does Obama’s attacks where he deliberately tries to diminish and demean all of Hillary’s accomplishments sound dignified to you?
Does Obama’s attacks on Hillary’s openness, when he won’t even release his Illinois Senate records, or the records on his Rezko dealings sound dignified to you?
Does Obama’s dishonest attack on Hillary, where he accuses her of releasing a photo of him in traditional African garb, while he’s standing before a large audience of Black Americans (even though the story was debunked weeks ago and Obama had even acknowledged that Hillary had nothing to do with it) sound dignified to you?
Does Obama’s sexist attacks on Hillary, where he accuses her of having mood swings and “clawing” him sound dignified to you?
I don’t think I need to go on to show that calling Obama a “Dignitarian” is a bunch of horsehockey.
P.S. If you have answered “yes” to all these questions seek medical help immediately.
His contemptuous attitude toward women in general has also been picked up in the voting trends.
He further has tried to associate himself with "wealthier" and more "intelligent" voters, although his claims in this area are more hype than fact.
Obama's support is primarily from academia plus a heavy Afro-American vote. He has leveraged academia to stir up college campuses and win delegates far out of proportion to his real electoral influence. Clearly he has bullied the Afro-American community to vote for him as a matter of loyalty and tried to destroy the Clintons well-earned respect in the A-A community.
Working people across the board have voted for Hillary as evidenced by her astonishing success despite a full court attack on her by the MSM up until the SNL skit a couple of weeks ago.
The states Hillary has won account for 263 electoral votes of the 270 needed to win the Nov election. If she wins PA then she will probably end up with 300-325 electoral votes from the Dem primaries.
How does one account for her being in such a bad position in delegate count, despite having won virtually the whole Democratic base of support? Clearly, Obama has had a clever caucus strategy with his college legions dominating these unrepresentative contests. In fact, Obama has beaten Hillary by approximately 150 delegates, 300+ to 150+ in caucus states amounting to virtually his whole lead. These were also obtained primarily in red states with no chance of Nov electoral Dem votes.
Despite this one would think Hillary would still be the favorite, but she is not. Why not? I believe the answer lies in the betrayal of Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi to their base constituents. Both Kennedy and Pelosi come from states, Massachusetts and California that heavily voted for Hillary over Obama. Yet these two powerful Democrats have ignored the voters in their own states and pushed Obama to the fullest. WIthout this core support of the Democratic "leadership" in Congress, Obama would have been finished a long time ago.
It is time to hold Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi accountable for their thumbing their noses at their loyal constituents. Massachusetts and California voters must begin to demand answers from their elected leaders as to why they are going against the votes of their constituents.
hillary is not the favorite because she has run a top down campaign. Obama is leading because he is bringing new people into the process, and his message is attracting alot of voters who would normally have supported Clinton.
Obama is a real leader on the relevant issues to Americans and that is the secret of his success. Nothing more, nothing less.
The big question is why the Congressional Leadership has ignored this fact and been leaning toward Obama. I think you will find in the House of Representatives that the vast majority of Democratic members come from states that have voted for Hillary as reflected in the fact that Hillary's states account for 263 of the necessary 270 electoral votes necessary to win in Nov, not counting PA where she is currently favored.
Kennedy and Pelosi have their own selfish agendas because they do not believe they would be sufficiently "influential" in another Clinton White House, because they were not the last time. They also choose to ignore the great economic success the Clintons had, which was their original campaign slogan: "It's the economy, Stupid". As a reminder, the Clintons turned trillions of dollars in accumulated Bush/Reagan deficits around to the point where we had strong surplusses in Clinton's final years, plus we had the strongest growth in American history from 1992-2000, plus the Clintons added 22.7 million jobs to the economy. The people who got those jobs and others who also benefitted from a strong employment economy are the base of the Democratic Party and they are voting for Clinton II.
Given the current mess the economy is in, thanks to Bush, one has to wonder what the hell Kennedy and Pelosi are doing trying to swing the nomination to Obama who has little economic experience of any substance, and what little he has, he misrepresents as testified by his own economic advisor in comments recorded by Canadian government officials.
If she can't organize her people to run a caucus, after Obama won caucus after caucus, then maybe she's incompetent to run the government.
Hillary would be happy to scam any superdelegate from any state, letting them use their own judgment. Let's see you disavow those votes.
Hillary as the unitary executive -- all that power, all that secrecy. Has she come out against Bush's trashing of the COnstitution? Has she said she'll restore any of the rights we've lost? McCain doesn't give a damn. Hillary has been eerily silent. Obama will review every single executive order by the Madman in Chief and return honest checks and balances.
What would the press be saying if Hillary had won 14 our of 17 contests, had the lead in delegates, superdelegates and popular vote? You know damn well.
But that Obama has been disrespectful to women? Has Hillary been respectful to the black vote she squandered?
She is a monster. God help us with either her or McCain.
Here is the pattern:
1) During the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance Obama does not place his right hand over his heart.
2) Michelle Obama states that only after the Iowa caucuses: “Was the first time she felt proud to be an American”. This from a woman whose success may have depended on affirmative action – something that would have made me feel proud to be an American.
3) Now we hear and see his pastor (his spiritual advisor for 17 years) openly preach “God should damn America” and who openly supports Farrakan.
This is not guilt by association, it is guilt because of choice. Obama cannot claim that he did not know what his “uncle” was preaching. He did know, but still chose to remain in that congregation.
The pattern is clear enough. Ignore at your own peril.
National Anthem. Didn't you learn that in school.
What about Pastor Hagee calling the Catholic religion "WHORE RELIGION", and "SATAN'S RELIGION"
At his Church School he was having BUY A SLAVE party.
McCain did not apologize for anything he has said. I forgot only Black People have to apologize.
He holds his hand over his heart for the Pledge of Allegiance. He does stand for the National Anthem, as taught by his WW II veteran grandfather.
Michelle was proud of the political process. That is what she meant.
The Pastor -- let's get hold of all the crooks who have ever done favors for the Clintons, paid Hillary's brother for pardons by Bill, the dictators who contribute to his foundation and build his library.
All you Great Patriots who live by fear and hate.
We will get the president we deserve. God help us.
As much as I like and admire Barack Obama, he has set out a tall order for himself to "change the world". Because ultimately that means changing the hearts of our fellow human beings - a tall order, even for God Himself. Frankly, I'd settle for a significant amount of reform in our governmental & legal institutions, to at least curb the more virulent excesses of rankism. As to the more central issue of pride, let President Obama use the bully pulpit - something at which he excels - and let's see how it goes. He certainly seems to be trying to set a good example...
When is the last time a dignified candidate defeated a candidate of "indignity" in a remotely close election? That is the dilemma Sen. Obama faces because clearly we know who has run a campaign of indignities.