On Making Progress

[H2O Man]

{1} "In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place. It is slavery to be amenable to the majority no matter what its decisions are."
--Gandhi

In the past few weeks, there have been a number of OPs/threads that have contained heated debates regarding the people and policies that are going to become "the Obama administration." These have included some well thought-out statements on the role of the progressive and liberal wing of the democratic party, including concerns regarding if those from the grass roots section of the wing are being represented in the Obama administration.

There have also been some less well thought-out comments, which include both what could be called "STFU," and claims that attempts are being made to "silence" debate. Gandhi’s saying that "intolerance betrays a want of faith in one’s cause" needs no further proof than some of the bitterness that has recently been expressed on this forum. Yet this tension provides us with a unique opportunity to examine the relationship between individuals and groups, and to understand what Barack Obama is attempting to do in terms of providing leadership. More, we may even be able to find that the vast majority of us are actually on the same side.

My goal is not to change anyone’s opinion, or to convince people of anything – because if one’s opinion or beliefs are dependent upon the opinions or beliefs of another person, it means that they depend upon something external. And the last thing that we should want is for people to have their beliefs forged by others – including by a political leader, be it a George Bush or a Barack Obama. For if one’s beliefs are held together by an outside influence, it means that the truth of that belief has not taken root within one’s self. And that, as we have seen in the past 28 years, can have merciless consequences.

{2} "I know you are asking today, ‘How long will it take?’ I come to say to you this afternoon however difficult the moment, however frustrating the hour, it will not be long, because truth pressed to earth will rise again.

"How long? Not long, because no lie can live forever.
"How long? Not long, because you still reap what you sow.
"How long? Not long, because the arm of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
--Martin Luther King, Jr.

Yesterday, there was a wonderful OP/thread on DU, where community member "Me" posted the last part of Martin’s message. This saying, we know, shows the strong influence of George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) on King’s thinking. King wrote that Hegel was his favorite philosopher.

Today, I am interested in our considering only a couple of the concepts that are known as "Hegelianism," and the philosophy that "what is rational alone is real." The part of this philosophy that I think we should examine is how it was translated in King’s imperfect style of leadership. It has to do with finding common ground among diverse people with strongly opposing ideas.

But first, it is important to recognize that King himself had areas where he held very different beliefs than Hegel. Most notable, in this context, was that Martin placed more emphasis on the individual than did Hegel. Still, he was in agreement on the belief that the moral arch of universal truths, when approached by the use of rational thought to find common ground, bends towards justice.

Such a belief system, when rooted in the individual, not only requires – but actually welcomes – a variety of opinions and beliefs within a given community. It holds that many people will not be at a point where they fully appreciate certain universal truths, a concept that made the disagreements expressed on yesterday’s thread particularly valuable. Now, on to King’s style of leadership.

{3} "Although King was relentlessly and harshly self-critical, his tolerance for his aides’ shortcomings and internal staff disputes was almost infinite."
--David Garrow; Bearing the Cross; 1999; page 463.

One of the most fascinating things about the civil rights movement is how the various groups and individuals who were working towards common goals so often disagreed. This included groups that had presented a united front publicly, but which endured the passionate disputes behind the scenes that are typical when large egos come into play. This same dynamic was present within King’s inner circle. Indeed, when Martin was not present, there were times when shouting matches between aides escalated into fist-fights.

When King was around, however, his aides made efforts to avoid such hostilities. Garrow notes that Martin’s influence was such that from an objective view, it can be said that each of the top aides wanted to be like King; more, each was invested, to some extent, in pointing out that others were not like Martin.

King used the same approach, based upon Hegelian philosophy, to try to find common ground. That meant that he could take opposing viewpoints, identify what was accurate and valuable in each position, and concentrate on moving forward from that common ground in a rational process.

He attempted to follow this same strategy when dealing with other civil rights groups, leaders, and the officials in city, state, and federal government. This included his responses to his more radical critics, such as Malcolm X, who spoke out against what they believed was King’s willingness to compromise: "A final victory is an accumulation of many short-term encounters. To lightly dismiss a success because it does not usher in a complete order of justice is to fail to comprehend the process of achieving full victory. It underestimates the value of confrontation and dissolves the confidence born of a partial victory by which new efforts are powered."

For many of us, Barack Obama’s election to the highest office in this nation is part of that process which Martin participated in. It is not the "final victory," but rather, an extremely important one, coming at a time when we need new efforts to be empowered.

{4} "There is no separate black path to power and fulfillment that does not intersect white paths, and there is no separate white path to power and fulfillment, short of social disaster, that does not share that power with black aspirations for freedom and human dignity. We are bound together in a single garment of destiny."
--Martin Luther King, Jr.

Barack Obama recognizes that the problems we face as a nation are not so black and white in nature, that one group alone can identify the solutions. Within the context of the terrible problems that the Bush-Cheney administration has caused in Iraq, for example, Obama recognizes the need for democrats and republicans to find common ground, in order to accomplish the best resolution possible.

Within the democratic party, Obama recognizes that there has been a serious divide between what we might call the Obama camp and the Clinton camp. These differences were not great enough for the republican party to exploit them to achieve a McCain-Palin election victory – which would have been a true social disaster. But they are great enough there we still see residual arguments and verbal "fist-fights" on DU on related issues.

Finally, although the full "Obama administration" has yet to be identified publicly, there are a significant number of progressive and liberal democrats at the grass roots level – including on DU – who are concerned that their voice is not being heard, and their opinions and beliefs are not being recognized, by the President-elect. Others here disagree.

What might be more useful than "STFU" and "quit trying to silence me" OPs/threads would be a serious discussion on how the progressive/liberal wing of the democratic party can advance their opinions and beliefs. What small steps might people at the grass roots take, in order to try to move towards their larger goals?

Thank you for your consideration.

Your friend,
H2O Man

[Mist]

1. Thanks for this posting H2O--much to ponder. I've bookmarked it for another

go-through. I wasn't aware of MLK's leadership style and patience with the foibles that occur in any group.

Excellent points here--constructive discussion is always to be preferred to hot-headedness. I need to remind myself of that often!

[H2O Man]

5. Well, thank you

for reading it and taking the time to reply. Martin Luther King's style of leadership is, in many important ways, the same that the leaders known as "Chiefs" exercise(d) in the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy. It's just a western variation of the same basic style. I was thinking about this last night when I read the one thread (by "Me") which I really enjoyed. This morning, I thought I'd attempt to start a discussion about the topic, in hopes that perhaps it would give some of us something to think about. I think that King and the civil rights movement should serve as a model for progressive and liberal democrats at the grass roots level in the next 8 years.

[cali]

2. thank you. wonderful OP

And I think we should take take it issue by issue, and also prioritize- though I know it's difficult to agree on what is most vital. I don't think focusing on appointments is particularly helpful or terribly important.

[H2O Man]

6. One of the

interesting things found in the documents from the Nixon administration that were released yesterday was a letter from Daniel Patrick Moynihan to Nixon. In it, Moynihan describes the need to focus on no more than six "priority" issues. He notes that when a President claims that virtually every issue is of great importance to him (or her, in the near future), then the audience realizes they are being lied to. No better example can be found than George W. Bush, a person who defines "black vs white, I'm always right" thinking.

Moynihan also points out how, in the federal bureaucracy, the third level plays a vital role. This is something that I think many DUers would benefit from focusing on, in the upcoming years.

Here is a link to that letter (hope it works!):
http://www.nixonlibrary.gov/virtuallibrary/documents/dec08/021170_Moynihan.pdf

[leftstreet]

3. uh...what is this "serious divide" between the Obama and Clinton camps?

Their policies are virtually identical.

:shrug:

[hfojvt]

4. would be better to say the Kennedy and Clinton camps

or the Wellstone and Clinton camps. Progressives who got behind Obama, as a more progressive alternative to Clinton. A victory which is looking more hollow all the time.

Which may explain some of the rancor here. The Clinton supporters do not have a problem with a third term for Bill Clinton. To them it is all good and the left wing fringe should just STFU.

[H2O Man]

8. The Kennedy family

had members who strongly endorsed both candidates. Caroline, who had initially supported Clinton, made a strong statement in her NY Times op-ed, comparing Obama to her father, in early 2008. Ted also noted that Obama had many of the same leadership qualities as had his brothers, John and Robert.

I think that one of the issues for progressive and liberal democrats was identifying a candidate who shared some of their values, who could win the general election. Having Obama for President does not shut the door on the possibility of electing a more progressive person in the future; in fact,it may be just the opposite -- his being President may open the door to this possibility in the future. As King noted, progress comes one step at a time. King was on the "left wing fringe" when he began to speak out against the war in Vietnam, but he was not only correct to do so, but the majority of Americans came to agree with his position.

[H2O Man]

7. Good question.

I think that, keeping in mind the policies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were indeed very similar, we could still look at two things -- (1) the democratic primary contest as a whole, and (2) the democratic primary as it was discussed and debated on DU -- and find that there was acrimony between both the campaign staffs and the campaign supporters. It may be that like the "can you find a face in this tree?" that used to be in the Weekly Reader that many of us read in school decades ago, that some people saw the divide as something real, while others did not.

[H2O Man]

9. An example:

One of the areas where Martin Luther King, Jr., found opposite opinions was when it came to fighting segregation. There were people who took a submissive position, believing that the "system" held no recourse for black citizens, and that it would be wrong to use violence against their oppressors. And there were those who also believed the "system" was closed to black citizens, and that they should focus on "self-defense."

King took the position that it was wrong to submit to unjust laws. Being submissive invited victimhood to continue indefinitely. Likewise, it was wrong to break the laws while trying to avoid getting caught: he believed in Gandhi's tactic of challenging the legal system. More, he pointed out that "self-defense" was good in regard to one's home, but that as a tactic in the larger society, it ran the risk of increasing violence. Hence, King was able to get a lot of people to stop being submissive, and a lot of people to be willing to break the law openly, and accept the consequences. This was the essence of the campaigns in Birmingham and Selma.

[Cults4Bush]

10. k&r for when I have just a wee bit more time

In the meantime a question. Are you always this calm and levelheaded offline? Every time I read an OP of yours I find myself "talked down", so thank you for that.

[H2O Man]

11. I think that

I am pretty much the same offline as on DU.

[bleever]

12. I just heard a report that left-wing bloggers are to blame

for causing Brennan to withdraw his name for consideration for CIA director. Some of Brennan's associates are pushing back. It's the first time I've heard that much power ascribed to "left-wing bloggers", and it made me appreciate the power of simply having open discussions between concerned citizens in online forums like this.

[H2O Man]

13. That was one of the ideas

that I wanted to discuss on a recent OP I had on GD, regarding "who do you think reads DU?" I think that there are some interesting patterns on this forum. While not written in stone, there seems to be a number of people who are opposed to the majority of the recent dissent on DU, who also take the position that few people outside the DU community read things on the forum.

There are a few people who seem predisposed to complaining about most everything. But the majority of DUers who are raising concerns in recent weeks are sincere in their desire for the administration to have progressive and liberal voices. I know of a few people who read DU -- sometimes from OPs/threads that may have been linked in e-mails to them -- who are associated with elected officials in Washington, DC. And that is one of the reasons that I'd like to have people engage in conversations that rise above the level of quarreling or verbal fist-fights.

[bleever]

14. Lately it's dawned on me

that "left-wing bloggers", when we're engaging in thoughtful and well-informed discussions, are dealing in a currency more valuable than that of the usual punditocracy.

It reminds me of the axiom in marketing that you want to focus on the group known as the "enthusiasts", because they are the best-informed and most passionate, and set the direction and trends of a market.

Unlike pundits, we don't have a career to further or an image to maintain. We can deal in facts and analysis in a more straightforward way, and we represent the people on the other side of the TV from the media, the side that goes out and votes.


It's a very encouraging trend!

[H2O Man]

15. At it's best,

a forum like DU offers us the opportunity to attend a modern "Irish hedge school" on the information highway. There are people here with a wide range of knowledge. We are all able to learn from each other. It's not a substitute for formal education, but rather, a valuable addition to it.

Likewise, this forum doesn't eliminate the advantages of being aware of what the corporate media is reporting. Instead, it helps put much of it into a more interesting, and more easily understood context.

In terms of grass roots activism, it's not a substitute, nor does it eliminate the advantages of engaging in "local politics." Rather, it provides the opportunity to learn from one another's experiences, and helps us prepare in order to be more effective at what we do away from the computer.

It adds up to advantages over what "paid" pundits and political aides offer, and it also offers both of these groups of people a valuable resource, as well. So I absolutely agree that it is an encouraging trend, even with the rough edges from time to time.