It Takes a Movement

"It took a president" to make Dr. King's dream real, said Hillary Clinton in an interview in New Hampshire. In the on-going wrangle about "change" and "experience," "rhetoric" and "reality," Senators Clinton and Obama's altercation about Kennedy, Johnson and King exposed a vital truth.

Obama, responding to Hillary's charge that he was raising "false hopes" about what he could accomplish, said that President Kennedy didn't look at the moon and decide getting there would be a false hope, and Martin Luther King didn't decide segregation couldn't end. That, he argued, would be like Dr. Martin Luther King standing at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington and saying, "Sorry guys false hope. The dream will die."

Hillary responded by contrasting Kennedy's experience to Obama's and arguing that ""Dr King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the civil rights act of 1964... [T]he power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president who said 'we're going to do it,' and actually got it done."

Partisans immediately entered the lists. Obama supporters accused Hillary of slurring King and Kennedy. Hillary supporters documented the reality that Johnson actually got the Civil Rights bills passed, whereas Kennedy was, if anything, a reluctant bystander, unwilling to take on the Southern Democrats who ruled the Senate.

But the real lesson is far more compelling. Both Kennedy and Johnson were pushed to do far more than they ever imagined by the movement that Dr. King helped to galvanize. While Dr. King let it be known that he supported the Kennedy and King over their Republican opponents, he drove that movement from the outside, never seeking political office, understanding that it was his role to be a "drum major" for justice, to mobilize citizens of conscience to push the limits of the political debate. He was arrested, gassed, beaten, and eventually assassinated by the defenders of segregation. But he was also investigated, wire-tapped, and slandered by administrations led by liberal Democratic presidents. Liberal politicians and press condemned him for pushing too hard and asking too much. He was abandoned by many of his allies when he came out against the Vietnam War. He was reviled when he moved from civil rights to economic rights, and began organizing a poor people's campaign, calling on the government to guarantee the right to a job for everyone able to work. He was assassinated as he stood with sanitation workers striking for the right to organize and a living wage.

The lesson of the King years isn't a choice between rhetoric and reality, or between experience and change. The lesson of the King years is the vital necessity of an independent progressive movement to demand change against the resistance of both entrenched interests and cautious reformers.

King understood that electing good liberal leaders - whether the young and fresh like Kennedy or the experienced and wily like Johnson -- was necessary but not sufficient. "Freedom," he taught, is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." King called each of us to vote but also to act. "Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals."

Obama is right that there is power in the word, that hope has a true force in the world. Hillary is right that Johnson's experience and forcefulness were vital to passing the civil rights laws. But King's example and lesson is that neither of these is sufficient. It takes a movement to force even a sympathetic president to act.

Comments

[Kansas Evans]

Great point, Borosage.

I think the best ticket would be Obama/Clinton, but they seem to be too busy trying to win the nomination, they can't work together. I appreciate the Clintons' established networks, but I don't trust Hillary to get enough done. I'm afraid she'll accomodate rather than press for real change.

[psantillana]

The important distinction is that Clinton - in the NH debate - started all this by denigrating words at the expense of action - a false dichotomy which only makes sense if you have a lousy way with words and hope that people think you're experienced.

[duboisist]

Mr. Borosage,

You glossed over an important point. You did not fully explain Dr. King"s "Drum Major Instinct."

In his Sermon on the "Drum Major Instinct" Dr. King called it "a desire to be out front, a desire to lead the parade."

I can't explain it any better than he did, so I encourage people to read the original http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/sermons/680204.000_Drum_Major_Instinct.html and decide for themselves.

[kush77]

Obama is just a talk no action. I have voted for him wish he could win the general electons.He is simple hollow rhetoric only.HRC has the best chance to win be the kind of president we want.Lets unite.

[AMolinaro]

You've touched upon the essence of democracy, the notion that our government will always be run by politicians, not leaders. Leaders appear when enough people independently come to the conclusion that a movement is necessary; for all of Dr. King's great leadership the civil rights movement was always much larger than just one man. And neither JFK nor LBJ were themselves civil rights activists nor agents of change, they merely acquiesed to the inevitable tide of history.

If we the people truly come together in support of the many things we need to be a great nation once more, no politician of any bent can stand in the way. Despite lies from politicians of all persuasions, we have long known Iraq was a horrible disaster. Despite mindless blather from the MSM, we have long known that healthcare and the US economy are in a world of trouble. The politicians will always represent and defend the status quo until the people demonstrate that the status quo has already changed. It's the nature of the game.

[mamacat]

Bush has been a very strong instrument for change for at least seven years. The trouble with his kind of change, is that it is reactionary, destructive change.
All the candidates want change. In this debate, shouldn't we distinguish between progressive change and reactionary change? Destroying progressive taxation, ruining the budget, eliminating middle class jobs, denying health care to Americans, refusing to react to a natural disaster, and wars of aggression, are all examples of change brought about Republians. Given the chance, they will continue with more of the same.

[not one of the sheep]

Everything that's wrong with this country is our fault. We put these clowns, Republican and Democrat, in office. Our poor performance overseas, high fuel prices, high taxes, overdependence on government and the devisiveness in both houses is all our fault. No more insiders and dividers in office. King pressed a movement of cooperation and understanding. For an insider like Hillary, the only movement you will see is a bowel.

[jazzence]

Rule of Law said it best. We can't sit around for someone else to do the work, we ALL have to participate in shaping this country. We could start by boosting support among the elected officials that are for the creation of more community centers and volunteer programs. We need to strengthen interpersonal interactions on a civic level rather than an online level.

This race is not over.
Ride the wave!

[YcCoSQ]

it is interesting to watch hillary try and find words to earn her support after she claimed being president isn't about words.

[SociologistTina]

GREAT post! Thank you! I'm glad someone said it.

Sincerely,

Tina (an avid John Edwards supporter)

[jsarets]

Watch for Obama to give a major foreign policy speech in the coming weeks, possibly before South Carolina. Right now he's hammering on the unity message. The next step is to move on to restoring our reputation and influence around the world and proposing a global approach to combat global terrorism.

Obama will differentiate himself from Clinton and certainly the Republicans by charting out a friendlier and more productive role for America as a world superpower. America is back, and we're ready to engage diplomatically with all nations, friend or foe, to find common ground and solve common challenges. He could propose strengthening NATO for global counterterrorism operations. He could propose a UN envoy to non-state actors that opens diplomatic relations between terrorist organizations and the international community.

The electorate is definitely looking for beef, and Obama will make sure that beef is what's for dinner. Foreign policy is probably the best place to start. Education is an underrepresented issue ripe for the picking. Trade will be important (suggested rhetoric: NAFTA is not free trade, it's slave labor).

People have criticized Obama for using rhetoric that's great for getting a campaign rolling but not so good for informing the public. Well, he was trying to get the campaign rolling. He is, after all, a masterful politician exploiting his keen awareness of what the people want. Now the campaign is rolling. Now he'll return to weightier issues, because that's what the people want.

This guy is good. We're picking a winner. He knows what we want, and he knows how to sell it in a very compelling way. Yes, he has liabilities, and he'll be attacked, just like any other politician. But in politics, it's less about the attacks than the responses. That's where Clinton's purported ability to withstand attacks is falling flat. Obama will fare better by responding evenly and never attacking back.

(continued...)

[Paul Loeb - Huffpost Blogger]

Borosage's theme also echoes Tom Hayden's excellent strategy piece for how to combine electioneering and movement building--How the Peace Movement Can Win

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071217/hayden

[Paul Loeb - Huffpost Blogger]

Excellent article. The challenge as people pour into the campaigns is to find ways to build autonomous movements for justice in their wake. This actually happened somewhat last time when the Howard Dean campaign evolved into the excellent group Democracy For America. And Howard Dean's 50-state strategy helps as well, with its goal of building local autonomous Democratic party organizations, instead of deciding everything from DC.

But the challenge now for progressive organizers is to find ways to connect all the new participants who are flooding into the Obama campaign in particular, and find ways that will allow them to have an independent voice capable of pushing Obama (and the Congress and Senate) after (I hope)he's elected.

Paul Loeb
Author Soul of a Citizen www.paulloeb.org

[KSH]

I thought your post was very heartfelt and an intelligent take on the entire conversation. It reminded me to re-read Dr. King's book "Why We Can't Wait"

[daveny]

Amen. It's been a long time since this country has seen what the power of the people can do!