I got this from Grace Boggs. Worth reading, posting, and re-posting:
…..
Our Time is Not the 1930s
By Grace Lee Boggs
Michigan Citizen, Nov. 30- Dec 6, 2008
Two weeks ago in my first post- election column, I wrote that I will not
be among those organizing or participating in protest demonstrations
against Obama’s actions or inactions, trying to hold his feet to the
fire. Neither will I wear a hair shirt, regretting that I voted for Obama
instead of Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney whose policies are more in
line with mine.
That is because my support for Obama was never based on his policies or
promises which, with few exceptions, are not that different from those of
other Democrats. From the outset my eyes were on the people at his
rallies, especially the youth who, inspired by his persona and his
eloquence, shed the fears instilled by the Nixons, Reagans and Bushes
since the 60s and, imbued with a new hope, began organizing on his
behalf.
For me, not just Obama’s victory but that transformation of “we the
people” from Fear to Hope, from passivity to activity, from looking on as
spectators to participating as citizens was what was so historic about
this period.
As I wrote last week, “Every time Barack insisted that it was not about
him but about us, we were reminded of our potential for becoming a better
people and a better country. When he talked about change we can believe
in, and we shouted back “Yes we can,” we were discovering the room for
growth in ourselves.”
Now that the campaign is over, let’s not turn all our attention to the
Oval Office, constantly comparing Obama and his actions or inactions with
FDR and the New Deal, refusing to face the reality that our time is not
the 30s. and forgetting the millions who were transformed during the
campaign and who need to continue this process of transformation into
active citizens if we are to save our planet and ourselves,
Tremendous changes have taken place in the world and in “we the people”
in the eight decades since the 1930s.
In the 30s our humanity had not been damaged by our dropping the bomb on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki and by our jeopardizing not only ourselves but the
whole planet by using up 25% of the world’s resources even though we are
only 5% of the world’s population. .
In the 30s our manufacturing structure was still intact, the working
class was growing in numbers, and defying the economic royalists by
singing ” Solidarity Forever.” Hi-Tech had not made the majority of
industrial workers obsolete. Transnational corporations, cheap oil and
globalization had not normalized the export of jobs.
In the 30s we never dreamed of an interstate highway system, two car
garages, the military-industrial complex, the cold war which we thought
gave us the right to kill millions in southeast Asia,
de-industrialization, and today’s speculative casino economy.
As Abraham Lincoln said 140 years ago in December 1862 : “The dogmas of
the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is
piled high with difficulty , and we must rise with the occasion. As our
case is new, so must we think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall
ourselves, and thus we will save our country.
To disenthrall ourselves
We need to look in the mirror and recognize how our racism,
materialism and militarism have brought our country and our planet to our
present condition where even the poorest Americans have more “goods” than
yesterday’s kings and queens. Yet, rich, middle class or poor, “we the
people” have not found happiness.
Instead of throwing billions at the economy in order to get our
financial system working again, we need to take steps, however small to
begin with, towards creating a local sustainable economy that enables us
to work, eat, and take care of our families, bring the neighbor back into
the ‘hood. and slow down global warming. Together we can create a local
food system, local health clinics, local safety and security committees
and happiness.
The politics that is not about policy, but meaning. Sheesh.
yes and no. politics should be about policy UP TO A POINT, right? you're supposed to be the conservative…this is actually much closer to old school black thought than anything i've seen coming from the conservative side, black or otherwise.
but then again, boggs is 80+ and has been through the fire.
Thanks for posting this.
Our Elder Sister Grace Lee Boggs is hopeful that the mass of energy Barack Obama set in motion can be sustained and directed into positive action now that the raison d’etre of the mass has been achieved.
The potential is there, but I don’t see it happening. Obama is a master of political expediency, not a leader of moral conscience. While conscience asks the question is it right, Obama wants to know what are the political risks and rewards of taking any action.
A case in point is Obama refusal to personally campaign for Jim Martin in Georgia during his run-off with Saxby Chambliss for the US Senate. Obama obviously decided Martin’s potential (and eventual) loss wasn’t worth investing his political capital. Campaigning for Martin may have been the right thing to do, but it wasn’t expedient.
If the millions who were inspired by Obama are to move against the evil triplets—racism, militarism, and materialism, they are going to have to do it on their own.
…which is what Boggs is saying isn't it? how is this different?
Perhaps we are saying the same thing. I wonder if this brilliant elder envisions those inspired by Obama eventually challenging his militarism, e.g.?
Let me take another stab at your last comment brother.
What should we be doing with this moment first? I believe that with this moment, our first step should not be a critical one–that is, it isn't first about going up against Obama for what he doesn't do (for whatever reason). By asking whether people will be willing to move against him, we are actually reproducing the idea that we are critiquing–that Obama is the “One.”
If he ISN'T “the One” then why do we begin by asking whether people are willing to move against him?
Shouldn't our first step be assessing what we can do with this energy to create the new type of spaces we want to come into existence? And aren't these steps more possible now than they were two years ago?
Shouldn't our first step be assessing what we can do with this energy to create the new type of spaces we want to come into existence? And aren't these steps more possible now than they were two years ago?–Dr. Spence.
The point that I was trying to make in my first post was that this “energy” revolves around the Obama mystique, and even he couldn’t marshal his forces to support Jim Martin in Georgia without “personal” involvement.
Given that fact, what chance does anyone else have of moving this energy into positive action?
Brother, and please don't take this the wrong way.
You're doing it again.
You are measuring the power of this network by the ability of Obama to use it. Again Obama becomes your center. So if Obama can't use it to get X done, then it's power is useless. And on top of that you're reproducing ideas about organizing that are really problematic. You more than other commenters around know how hard organizing is, how much work it takes.
Dr. Spence, I can't take it the wrong way because I'm not sure that I understand your perspective. Who or what is “this network?” Perhaps we need to level set.
I thought that the focus of Elder Sister Boggs' comments was the mass of energy Barack Obama set in motion.
Certainly I've seen energy organized by one group co-opted and re-directed by others. I'm not sure that is what you are proposing, but if it is I don't see it happening. The mass of energy I'm referring to belongs exclusively to Obama. Everyone else will have to organzie their own.
I read you then as saying that “energy” is “owned” by one group or another, and that this energy is actually separate from “the people”.
I read Boggs as saying that energy is a substance that can be invoked by one group or another but depending on how it is invoked can generate its own momentum, its own energy.
When SNCC organizers go into the deep south to organize voters they couldn't take that energy they put into motion back even if they wanted to. It spilled out into a number of different arenas. Obama doesn't own this mass of energy anymore than SNCC owned the energy in the south.
But BELIEVING he does will have its own independent (negative) effect.
Dr. Spence, I’m referring to a very specific energy which was organized for a specific purpose around a charismatic personality. Now I see that his supporters are attempting to sustain their momentum by directing that energy to support Obama’s agenda:
Change Is Coming – House Meetings http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ym1o0bwThA
http://www.examiner.com/x-1892-Phoenix-Progress…
I agree with Elder Sister Boggs that “energy is a substance that can be invoked by one group or another but depending on how it is invoked can generate its own momentum, its own energy.” For example one could argue that the energy invoked by the Montgomery Improvement Association, despite the lapse of time, eventually evolved into the sit-in movement which led to the formation of SNCC.
However, I would argue that these young people generated their own energy which was the critical element in the success of the Civil Rights Movement. The young people who formed SNCC rejected the appeal by Martin King to become a component of his organization. Under the influence of Ella Baker they decided to become a self-determining entity.
Could elements of Obama’s energy free themselves and organize into a dynamic which addresses the evil triplets. I agree that it could happen, but I don’t just don’t see it. I see that energy as totally captivated and revolving around Obama’s magnetic appeal. For most Afrikan Americans the man is above criticism. “In Barack we trust” is the order of the day.
See: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/11/29…
The energy to address the evil triplets will come from other sources.
Well said. And it has me marinating…
Thanks
CP