byChris Bowers, Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 03:53:43 AM EST
I saw The US Vs. John Lennon tonight. It was exactly what I needed. Somehow, spending the day canvassing in the late fall in Philly had the song "California Dreaming" in my head for a while this afternoon. Heading out to the suburbs to watch a movie that was about activism and music from the late 1960's / early 1970's really hit the spot. I haven't felt this good or relaxed since August (I feel the first couple days after Lamont's victory good). The crowd actually cheered and applauded when Gore Vidal said "John Lennon represented life, and Mr. Nixon, and Mr. Bush, represent death." And that is just so right.
The line in the movie that had the most impact on me was when Lennon said at a concert / rally, something like this:
OK, we tried Flower Power. It didn't work. So what? Now, let's try something else.
And so John Lennon kept trying new things. He wasn't afraid to let go of the past, or keep changing who he was, no matter how much it upset people. Which brings me to the subject of my post, which you will find in the extended entry.
Last summer, I got into a big argument on MyDD with a bunch of Baby Boomer activists over what I saw as the slavish devotion to late 1960's-early 1970's protest tactics that, in my opinion, had grown utterly outdated and ineffective. Large rallies featuring songs like "what's going on" weren't working anymore. From what I could tell, we continued to imitate those tactics largely as an homage to the amazing people of the late 1960's and early 1970's, rather than as an attempt to actually conduct effective activism. A lot of people got really pissed at me for those arguments, at least partially because I strayed into something bordering on ageism when I stated my case (read this post for my last statement on that particular argument). But Lennon's words, spoken at a time before I was even born, really hit me. He stated exactly what I was thinking last summer--we would be really stupid to repeat the past just because we admired the people who carried out those protests. The point isn't to repeat classics of the activist Canon simply to develop a better appreciation of the classics, as though we were conservative literary scholars or something. The point is to be effective. Thus, if a tactic isn't working, you need to abandon it, no matter your political outlook or your personal identity. If you don't, you are just plain ineffective, and more interested in "The Canon" and maintaining your image than in accomplishing your goals.
Let me continue to be eleiptical...
There are a lot of differences between the contemporary progressive movement and what John Lennon was a part of from 1969-1974. For starters, we are not radicals, but we are up against radicals. Far leftism, from communism to anarchist smashing of the state, simply has no place in the contemporary progressive movement. Basically, that sort of thing has been reduced to the utter periphery of jester-esque sideshows such as the Dumpster Derby that anarchists hold on my block once every year (always just before the police briefly declare martial law in a two-block radius to shut it down). When it comes to our current movement, we don't have a single anthem, because we live in an era when everyone has their own, individual taste in music derived from mass Internet MP3 sharing. We don't have a Mecca to all visit / live-in such as New York, because the Internet makes taking part in the movement possible from anywhere. We don't even have nearly as many large marches, and the ones we do have are generally ignored, rather than suppressed by the FBI. We do, however, have an entire new industry of progressive, political documentaries. We have millions of blogs. We make our own videos on YouTube. We have vast databases of music on our computers. We storm thrift stores and build our wardrobes from recycled clothes. We drink local beer made by local artisans, sample wide varieties of brews, and then make our own anyway. We make open-source software, despite no monetary benefits. We make absurd variations on coffee our regular drinks. We don't plan out careers, but move form job to job as though we were just dating someone. We cook a wide variety of food, eat in Ethiopian restaurants, and shop in supermarkets with entire aisles featuring Asian and Latin cuisine. We are active in political campaigns, from donating, to volunteering, to voting. And on and on--we are always recreating ourselves. We have abandoned the tactics of the past, because they were not working, and instead adopted a new, creative ethos where individuals create and re-create themselves in a pluralistic environment that is not restricted to any specific location. Thus, we have the social and cultural underpinnings of the progressive, political movement.
Yes, this ethos is decidedly class-based, but what large movement in history has not been? The progressive movement is the end product of the first major organizing movement within what Richard Florida famously termed "The Creative Class." This organizing movement was first perpetuated by MoveOn.org during the conservative drive to remove Clinton from office, and it has rapidly grown ever since then. But really--of course it is going to be based largely online, where people can create and recreate themselves more than in any other medium in history. Of course it is going to quickly recognize that the tactics of the past don't work anymore, because it's built-in Generation X bullshit detector is very finely tuned. Of course it is going to want more than other people thought was reasonable, as Stuart Rothenberg once mocked me for, because it is American, and that is what Americans have always wanted--more. Of course it is going to be extremely tolerant, because it grew up in a vastly more pluralistic world than any generation before it, and because it is predicated on the very notion of fluid identity (thus, the common friction between the netroots and urban Democratic machines often dominated by "ethnic whites"). Of course it is going to be creative, because that is how you make a living, a career, and a personality these days both before and after you graduate from college.
The contemporary American progressive movement is an odd mix of modernism (authenticity, meritocracy, and the liberal, Enlightenment long march of progress that eschews, quick radical change) and postmodernism (the abandonment of fixed identity, the mistrust of, and de-mooring from, large institutions, as well as the general tendency to be playful). The reason so many people have attached themselves to it is both class-based (it doesn't threaten your status as middle class--in fact, it is almost required for advancement), because it is actually working, because it allows one to be both outside and inside at the same time, because it is a challenge, and, most importantly, because it allows for creative action--namely, the remaking the faltering Democratic Party in your own image. It is just the latest manifestation of what John Lennon described thirty-five years ago, but with a huge demographic shift into the Creative Class, and massive technological innovation in the Internet to support it. We tried a bunch of other stuff, from Flower Power to being DLC--and it didn't work. So what? Let's try something new.
I think one of the reasons I really hate people who trash the Democratic Party for their own benefit is that people who do this are striving toward a retro image of "The Principled, Immutable Conservative." It is so lame, so unprincipled while claiming to be principled (conservatism ultimately has no principles except defending the status quo) so temporary while claiming to be long-term, and so obviously "out for yourself" while claiming to be "out for the people." It sets my bullshit detector ringing day and night--it is just such an obvious con and hussle. At the same time, I absolutely can't stand those people and blog commenters who endlessly demand a hard-line progressive approach to politics. Haven't these people ever heard of concepts like flexibility, creativity, and pluralism? It is as though they would rather everyone be just like them, then face the horrifying possibility of actually having to maneuver yourself through the very diverse real world. From my perspective, they are just fixed-identity based theocons wearing a different outfit.
The odd convergence of modernist principles with post-modern identity has bred a surprisingly effective contemporary progressive movement that few, if any, saw coming. Effective as it is, in the end, the only reason we continue to follow through with it is because it keeps working. When the progressive movement finally faces its version of the 2006 elections from the wrong end of the pipe, we will probably give it up very quickly up and try something else new. That is what John Lennon understood four decades ago--if it isn't working, just chuck it, and try something new. That is what creative people do. Don't worship it because it validates your identity. Don't demand that everyone follow the same path in order to continue to validate your identity. Maybe you need to adjust your bullshit detector so you know better when something isn't working. Maybe you need more courage to change the way you understand who you are even if you have followed one path for several years, or even multiple decades. Whatever it is, you need to get past it, and be willing to try something that actually works. If you aren't willing to do that, did you ever really care about the principles you were trying to achieve, or did you just care about being perceived as someone trying to achieve those ends?
So, in the spirit of trying something new, I thought I would highlight a rather prescient YouTube Video I came across today. It is about the elections, and it features George Michael's image-changing theme song, "Freedom '90." Created by anonymous volunteers on behalf of the progressive movement for the 2006 election with lyrics about a one-time and soon to be outed pop icon striving for personal change and distributed free on the Internet--seriously, it could hardly be more relevant to the topic of this post. At the very least, it emphasizes that we all need to try something else, because what we are doing right now isn't working. Enjoy.
And we all shine on. This is one failed English academic and former left-wing radical with absolutely no political or statistical training saying that I think John Lennon would be proud. Have a good night.
