As to be expected, there is a lot of post election speculation as to
how and why the Obama campaign emerged victorious. While the variety of
explanations are as numerous as the reports themselves, there is one
uniformly consistent thread that was cited before and after the election
-
voter turnout. On one side of the proverbial aisle are those
who forecast another close election with a razor thin margin of victory,
on the other are those that point to pre-election polls that seem to
have predicted the final results with surprising accuracy. The emphasis
on voter turnout comes out of the close election scenario: when the
electorate is evenly split, the deciding factor may well be how many
people show up versus how many stay home. Voter turnout may seem like a
given in terms of deciding an election (any election), but the
overemphasis on it in this particular case feels artificial to me, as if
it is being used to draw attention away from some other perspective. I
recently wrote a
post questioning the 50/50 electoral polarization myth that has become such a staple of our political discussions. Voter turnout
can
be a factor when one party has a clear majority, but even if the
minority party turns out every last one of their voters, they may still
be in the minority.
The appeal to fear of a changing
electorate was overwhelmingly strident throughout this electoral cycle.
Republicans’ brazen attacks on African American, Latino, LGBT, and
Women’s rights inspired a
surge at the polls that could not be stopped even through rampant voter suppression.
But the extremity of these attacks simultaneously allowed Democrats to
adopt a protective stance, rather than one advocating to expand the
rights in question. The fear cuts both ways it seems, insuring that
those less enthusiastic about Obama’s record don’t take the risk of
voting for someone more in line with their concerns. The Obama
Administration is happy to accept your support whether or not you agree
with their agenda -
just keep it to yourself. But perhaps the changing electorate is more than the Democrats bargained
for. What if those so passionately mobilized to vote by the attacks on
their rights refuse to back down? What if they move beyond this protective
stance to mobilize for the
expansion of those rights? What if
they shift en masse from a strategy of simply making demands on those in
power to one of
development and mobilization of their own alternatives,
and start using those alternatives to withdraw their consent from the status
quo? What if they are no longer satisfied with voting every four (two, four, six) years?
What if they choose instead to
vote every day?
A freshly re-elected president
brought to tears
in a moment of connection with the young volunteers so integral to his
campaign; it was certainly not something I had seen before, and I found
myself surprisingly moved by the spectacle. It appeared intimate, and
personal, and the president’s words were remarkably humble. After I
watched it I thought about how this address
might be different
from others that the president has made. Watching him enter and exit the
scene I wondered if there would be any opportunity for these “smarter,”
“better organized” and “more effective” volunteers to share their hopes
and dreams for the country, to participate in an actual
dialogue with their president? A little more than a week later I read a short article titled,
“Obama campaign asks: What do we do next?” The link in the article delivered me to an
Obama for America survey. Was
this the medium for
dialogue? Perhaps
this document could be a starting point for the volunteers to input
their ideas beyond the election cycle? As I read through the three pages
it was apparent that the reference point for the questions was mostly
limited to the campaign and future campaigns. There were a few questions
that allowed for short “write in” answers and several at the end
requested a sentence or two, but by and large the questions focused more
on “how can we campaign better” than “What do we do next?”
One
survey question asked “What issues would you be interested in
volunteering or organizing around in the future?” Among the 24 options
there was only one issue that expressed a specific viewpoint in the way
that it was stated: “Avoiding the fiscal cliff.” When the Bush tax cuts
were originally supposed to sunset in 2010, the Republicans played their
tried and true “tax and spend liberal” card to flip the switch and
claim that allowing the tax cuts to expire was in fact Obama
raising taxes.
A clear majority of the country was not in favor of extending the tax
cuts for the wealthy, but Bush & Co. were crafty enough to design
the tax cuts as a reduction of rates across the board. The tax cuts for
the lower tax brackets were a pittance next to the windfall for the 1%,
but tethering the two together allowed Republicans to push the idea that
Obama would be “raising taxes” on
everyone. The ball was already
rolling on the so called “fiscal cliff” prior to the election, setting
it up as a showdown, an impending crisis just beyond the horizon. Once
again the Republicans are playing that same card, attempting to run the
table. My understanding is that even after we go over the “cliff”
Congress could pass legislation retroactive to January 1 (extending the
cuts for the “middle class”), but the narrative would be significantly
different. With the cuts officially expired, the Republicans would have
to
defend higher taxes on the “middle class.” Sounds like a pretty good move strategically, so why then is Obama for America
promoting the “fiscal cliff” narrative?
I’m
hearing a lot of talk about the Obama ground game and the effective use
of collected information - this tremendous marketing campaign seems to
have paid off, but what have we learned? Are we being sold a president
the same way we are sold a pair of sneakers or a box of cereal? Are we
being invited to participate in our democracy when we answer the polls
and surveys? Is this collected information useful in addressing the
challenges we face or is it just a mechanism for securing our vote, and
through that vote our deference to authority? I read an article that
mentioned grassroots movements in conjunction with supporting the
administration’s agenda, but this top down approach (the agenda being
set by the president) seems contrary to the very nature of grassroots
organizing. In yet another
post election piece I read this:
Following re-election, the president wasted no time taking advantage of
the organization's massive base. Obama spoke to 30,000 supporters on a
conference call last Tuesday about the fiscal cliff, rallying the troops
as he began negotiations with congressional leaders to find a
deficit-reduction package.
"Our work can't stop now," he said, according to audio of the call.
"We're going to need you guys to stay active. We need you to stick with
us and stay on this and I'm pledging to do a better job even than we did
in the first term in making sure you guys stay involved, that you guys
know exactly what we're doing, that we're giving you guys clear
directions and talking points in terms of how we keep mobilizing across
the country."
We don’t need a marketing
campaign to keep us engaged, keep us busy, keep us quiet. Can the OFA
network, or perhaps another network altogether, be used instead to ask
our people how they think we should address the challenges we face?
Perhaps as a means to submit proposals, compile ideas, develop solutions
to these challenges? Elevation of ideas from the bottom up is what
grassroots is all about -
the community participates, not as de facto liberal lobbyists and
cheerleaders, but in the actual process of policy development and
decision making. When it comes to the “fiscal cliff” Obama is asking us
to make Republicans concede to
his demands,
not to make
him concede to
ours.
With few specifics being offered we are expected to support an agenda
that we have had no part in creating. I can recall talking to Bush
supporters in 2004 about their “$300 tax rebate”
when they brought it up as a reason to re-(s)elect Bush, and asking them
if their city and state taxes went up to balance the loss of federal
revenue. Isn’t bush
getting your vote for nothing if the same amount of income is extracted from you one way or the other?
How do you feel about getting duped like that? Will
our states and cities be made to compensate for Obama’s proposed
federal spending cuts? What and how much will we be asked to sacrifice
in order to keep “our” tax cut and make the 1% pay their “fair share”?
When you get to the end of the survey there’s a button labeled “submit.”
Is this entire campaign an empty distraction? Mobilizing Americans,
not to stop federal fracking legislation,
not to repeal NDAA indefinite detention,
not
to press for climate change ACTION in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, but
to tell stories to their congressional representative about what they
could do with that 2,000 bucks (for a “typical” middle class family of
four). I've written before about how electoral politics is used to
distract us from
pursuing any kind of direct democratic action: as a siphon of limited
time and organizing energy, but also as a restraint to keep us in line.
Is this new perpetual Obama campaign just another method of instilling a
false sense of purpose in the volunteers? On Black Friday I saw a
report on the news where a young man interviewed outside the local
Walmart talked about the sense of camaraderie he found waiting in line -
it was like they all had a common cause...
I recently worked on a
video
for a
David Weinberger talk titled “The Networking of Knowledge and Storytelling.” The
producer on the project and I had a discussion
at our initial meeting about the formation and evolution of ideas,
sketching tiny diagrams to
represent the flow of information. Person A says “Apple,” person B says
“Orange.” Weinberger presented a model of networked knowledge stemming
from linked ideas, ideas often in contention. “We know now in networks,
not as individuals.” It reminded me of concepts that I was becoming
familiar with through involvement with
Occupy Wall Street. I had been learning about consensus and was
beginning to understand how an idea that was evolved through a small
group, a working group or an
affinity group,
might avoid the defensive trappings of ideas proposed by individuals.
An individual might spark the process in the group, but it seemed to me
that most ideas had a kind of
life of their own that preceded
their initial proposal. It struck me that this process was a method to
free “our” ideas from ownership, to let them exist
independent of individual ego and belief, to invite and encourage
modification of the ideas through alternative perspectives. Of course,
the form of
horizontal direct democracy that OWS is evolving is quite different than what we see practiced in our government.
When
the president tells us that his first job is “to keep the American
people safe,” he is fortifying his patriarchal role, inviting us to
breathe a collective sigh of relief that we have someone in the White
House watching out for us. Certainly there is comfort in trusting that
our leaders know what to do and how to do it, but how does the
president’s role as decider - protector - leader fit into the
community organizing model that he seems to favor? There is comfort in
having direction and feeling a sense of purpose, but folks need never
define these things for themselves if they are consistently provided for
them. Is it ultimately more empowering to take control
and lead the way, or to allow people the freedom to choose their own
path? And what do we lose when we supplant the collective potential of
many people with the perspective of a single individual? The
representative democracy practiced in the US need not inhibit community
empowerment so long as representatives are selected
by the community to
represent the ideas
of the community, but where there is forceful
repression of alternative forms of democracy, there will likely be
“leaders” who are no longer representative.
When Obama
says “we’re all in this together,” does this
togetherness involve us organizing/mobilizing with and for each other or
only in support of the president’s agenda? The close election scenario,
the polarized electorate, the “fiscal cliff,” whatever it is called - it
is a contest, a conflict, a
crisis marketed to the masses.
Another distraction in a long series of ever more urgent events,
signaling our minds to shut down our creative potential and focus on
securing our survival. There may be actual consequences if action is not
taken immediately (what kind of
crisis would it be without dire consequences after all?), but this does not change the fact that it
is
a fabrication, an abstraction that we have created and that we consent
to. We should not limit ourselves solely to the options that are placed
before us, Democrat or Republican, taxes and/or spending cuts, jobs or
environment, unions or budget shortfalls, energy independence or climate
change action... This process is self perpetuating in that the original
challenge is replaced by a conflict, requiring us to make a “choice”
rather than seek a creative solution (or
multiple solutions). Is it even
possible
within the present construct for the President to ask us for ideas and assistance without
compromising his status as a “leader”? Whatever the answer, we must
recognize that the limits of the presidency, the Congress, the
government do not need to be our limits as well. Thank you for voting.
Thank you for exercising your power. It’s yours - you can do it every
day.
