Saturday, July 29, 2006

Wellstone

Every Friday night, our local baker shows progressive oriented films at his cafe. Last night, he showed an inspiring documentary on the career of Sen. Paul Wellstone. Despite the unhappy ending, Wellstone and his wife (an activist in her own right) tragically in a plane crash in October 2002, it was one of the most uplifting pieces I've seen in a while.

One of the things that intrigued me was how unusual someone like him seems now. I wondered what it would be like to be represented by someone with a shred of idealism. Idealism in politics seems virtually dead now, even on the left where idealism was so central in the 60s and 70s. Ronald Reagan's victory was more comprehensive than people realized during his presidency. He didn't just win the battles of the day.

Reaganism thoroughly eradicated the notion that government could anything (except wage war and provide welfare to defense contractors). Reaganism thoroughly crushed the notion of the word 'public.' The only thing that mattered was fundamentalist individualism. Conservatives of today complain that Americans aren't sufficiently united against the threats and alleged threats that we face. But that's because Americans no longer think in collective terms. This is a consequence of the Me Decade and the rejection of the notion of society, of being part of something greater than oneself.

Now, politics are governed almost exclusively by anger, divisiveness and demonization. These elements have always been present in American politics but at least they used to be balanced out by a bit of idealism. That balance seems to have disappeared.

At this point, it would be useful to point out the difference between skepticism and cynicism. Skepticism means you don't take anything at face value. Cynicism means you automatically attribute malicious or selfish motives to everything and everyone. Skepticism is a key component in ensuring democracy doesn't turn into authoritarianism. Cynicism is corrosive and undermines democracy by assuming that every action is selfish and everyone is only interested in self-promotion.

Skepticism means you analyze each case individually. Cynicism means you automatically assume the worst. In that way, cynicism is just as simplistic and mindless as the Polyanna view of the world. It doesn't take any effort to believe that the world is all sweetness and light. It also doesn't take any effort to believe that all humans are irredeemable thugs. It doesn't take any effort to believe that President Bush or the Democrats are automatically wrong before you even process their words or actions (the partisan view). It doesn't take any effort to believe that the purpose of every government program is to undermine society, that any collective action is a vicious assault on freedom (the hard-core libertarian view). These analyses are cheap, lazy and wrong.

But this cheap cynicism is worse than wrong, it's destructive. If you believe that citizens are irrelevant to the political process, you're going to sit on your butt and watch Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire instead of writing, protesting, organizing or voting. If you believe that all politicians are corrupt and there's nothing you can do about it, then you will withdraw from the political process. The more good folks withdraw from the political process, the more influence is ceded to the less honorable people. The more cynicism rules, the more good folks will be discouraged from getting involved at all.

We live in an era where it's easy to be cynical. We live under the most divisive president in generations. He's waging an insane war of aggression that was supposed to make us safer but has instead led to even his own party members saying we're in the early stages of World War III. And the disastrous foreign policy only serves to obscure disastrous domestic policies as well, such as in the domains of energy, scientific research and civil rights.

Yet, it would be a mistake to forget that while I oppose what the president is doing, a lot of people support him and/or what he's doing. A lot of people think the war is necessary and that Americans really need to get behind it. A lot of people think, for whatever reason, that the country will go down the tubes if two men are allowed to get their relationship recognized by the state. A lot of people feel that too many Americans don't recognize the dangers of Islamic extremism.

And people on all sides resent the influence of big money on politics, the legalized bribery of poltical officials called campaign contributions. People increasingly see that there are only a handful of true differences between the two major parties and that most of the other 'differences' are cosmetic or questions of degree. (Don't forget that John Kerry's position on Iraq wasn't that it was a terrible idea. It was that Iraq was a nifty idea that Bush was screwing up the details and that he could do better)

In short, everyone's angry. Everyone's more worried about blaming the other side or the media than trying to figure out solutions to problems.

The president didn't help things when he demanded total subservience. He infamously said that either you're with us or you're with the terrorists. Liberals and progressives resented being told they couldn't oppose anything he did or they'd be with the terrorists. These groups had real concerns about radical Islam, since religious extremism is the most reactionary, anti-progressive force in the world today. If you want unity, you need to reach out to people. The president and his supports demanded absolute obedience or else. Of course there was going to be resistance.

In the wake of this, there were two astonishingly juvenile smear campaigns. One by the right against anyone who questioned the war on Iraq or its dubious justifications. One by the left against President Bush's intellect and his alleged similiarities to the history's worst monsters.

This sort of bile is anthetical to building consensus. If you've been bombarded with slogans like "Bush is Hitler" or if you've had some scream at you about being a traitor or a terrorist appeaser, you are not likely to be in the mood to sit down and rationally discuss possible ways to move forward.

But once these folks wipe the drool from their chins and their blood pressure goes back to normal, the issues will remain.

Even aside from the war, there are a lot of problems in this country. But as someone who's not a cynic, I also believe that a lot of good things about this country too. There are a lot of good people (both supporters and opponents of the current president) with good will who, if their energy and ideas were tapped, could help make this country even better.

And that's what intrigued me about Paul Wellstone. He didn't just say, "This is what I'm going to do. Follow me or else."

That's really a true leader of a movement does. He convinces people to follow him but more importantly, he inspires them to take action in their own right. He makes them feel like they have power and that the power will survive even when the leader is no longer there.

It's hard to do nowadays, when cynicism is so easy. But some people manage it. Howard Dean did it for a while. And he's a great example. Dean was not really that liberal himself; he was a fairly pragmatic centrist governor. Yet he was able really stir up the previously moribund liberal wing of the Democrat Party. That wing remains active despite Dean himself selling out.

Paul Wellstone was able to motivate people to become active in the political process. Jesse Jackson did it. Dean did it.

Even though I disagree with them wholeheartedly, the Christian Right did a masterful job of it in the 80s and 90s. They took a group that felt marginalized by the mainstream, organized them from the bottom up in a long, painstaking process and now they control the country.

There are no shortcuts. But when it works, it really works.

Wellstone, Jackson and the Christian Right knew one critical thing. Money may be disproprotionately important in our political process but corporations still can't vote on Election Day. Ultimately, the elections are decided by human beings. And when human beings are organized, they can win.

History is filled with supposedly powerless people who didn't believe in their supposed powerlessness. Wellstone was a rabble rouser in one of the most establishment bodies in this country. He didn't get through his whole agenda; he spent most of his time in a Senate controlled by the other party and the rest controlled by the other wing of his own. But through hard work, passion, commitment and the belief that politics matters, he got things done against the odds.

Whether you believe you can make a difference or believe you can't, you're right.

1 comment:

Frank Partisan said...

Wellstone voted against the war, and still would have regained his seat. That was the time Dems, were ducking talking about the war.

Cynicism is the mentality associated with being beaten down, isolated and marginalized. It is the opposite of activism.