During the fight with the Republican Noise Machine last week over the stunning revelation that junior staffers for John Edwards have the gall to disagree with the theological doctrine of the Virgin Birth, I made it clear that one of my main priorities in determining which Democratic candidates I support in primaries was the degree to which a given candidate has both the ability and the willingness to build the progressive movement. I have received quite a number of emails and comments about this stance, and so I would like to take some time to explain it. Let me start by saying that I was not exaggerating for rhetorical effect, or otherwise distorting my feelings on the matter. This is one of the main, if not the main, criteria I use to determine my personal selection of candidates. It also is not an over intellectualization of the situation, or simple, selfish behavior to reward whatever candidate who is willing to reward my constituency. This is something that comes deep from within my heart and my gut. Whether it is Howard Dean, Barack Obama, Anne Dicker, Ned Lamont or John Edwards, the candidate with the movement is the candidate who I want to be with.
Throughout most of my life, I have been enamored by the idea of movements and revolutions. During the decade I spent studying literature, I was always most excited by experimental, avant-grade work that took place during times of political and social upheaval (you can never read enough early twentieth century artistic manifestoes--fortunately, there is no shortage of them). When I studied critical theory and philosophy, I was always most interested in work that challenged established norms of government, the self, perception and knowledge with radical, but rigorous, new ideas (I was obsessed with Michel Foucault at multiple times during my career in academia). History has always been a favorite hobby of mine, and my favorite topics are invariably revolutions: American, French, Russian, Irish, Indian, Cuban, Eastern European--you name it. Also, no matter how many presidential candidates, members of congress, Democratic Party leaders, or other national figures I meet and talk with, my favorite moments in political campaigns are always large rallies (preferably those organized by volunteers, or those convened to celebrate an electoral victory). I want to be there at the moment when history happens, when the world changes, when consciousness shifts, and when the people rise up and throw off the shackles of the elite, the status quo, and the comfortable. I have wanted that for a long time. Before that happens, I want to be an active member of the small clique, coterie or circle that identified the possibility for massive change and precipitated its manifestation. Whether it is a revolution of the sort Ben Franklin or Tristan Tzara would identify, I want in. As William Wordsworth wrote in The Prelude about witnessing the world change up close during the French Revolution "bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven." Man, do I ever envy young Wordsworth. I want working for a candidate to give me a taste of the revolutionary feeling for which I long, and I want my regular job to do the same thing. For a long time, artistic and intellectual endeavors provided me with that spark, but when they ceased doing so I moved onto a career where that feeling was quickly re-establishing itself: online progressive activism. If I am willing to upend my entire life to search for that feeling, the least I should expect from the candidates I support most fervently is that working for them will allow me to sense it.
The two most common critiques I hear of this movement-based criterion are as follows. First, the candidate who has the movement behind him or her might not be a progressive champion. Would you really support a less progressive candidate in favor of the candidate with the movement? Second, supporting the movement instead of he candidate who actually has the best chance to effective change is ultimately a misdirection of resources. Would you really support a candidate with a large movement who does not have the best chance to actually take office?
To both questions, the answer is yes. I would indeed support a less progressive candidate with a movement than a more progressive candidate without one, just as I would support a less "electable" candidate with a movement than an "electable" candidate without one. Unlike many bloggers who bristle at being labeled left-wing, I am indeed pretty darn far to the left. As such, in the previous presidential election, I liked a lot of what Kucinich had to say policy wise, but by mid-2003 there was no way I could go against the massive movement I saw building for Dean right before my eyes. At the same time, I was disgusted by the notion that Dean's movement should be abandoned or simply transferred to another candidate. The latter is a truly preposterous and offensive suggestion that shows the extreme extent to which the political elite take political activists for granted.
The movement for Dean on its own was a more powerful--and more progressive--mechanism for change than any individual candidate could ever be, no matter how electable that person is or how perfectly progressive his policy papers might be. I think the three years since Dean's defeat in the 2004 primaries bear me out on this. The fifty-state strategy and challenging every district, the small donor explosion and the massive revival of volunteer, progressive political activism, the rise of new, independent, progressive media and challenging the corporate noise machine, standing up to Republicans and drawing a clear contrast, the silent revolution and taking ownership over the Democratic Party--that all found its seed resources in the Dean movement. I continue to insist that the ideas, energy, and resources which came from that campaign was the important difference between how Democrats fared in 2006. As much as
the netroots were the difference in 2006, the Dean campaign was the difference in making the netroots for real. Even thought he movement was focused on an election, the movement was still more important than the election. Movements span multiple elections, and enter the nation's social fabric in seemingly non-political areas. The modern progressive movement is doing just that.
The candidate who is open to the movement, and who has the potential to help the movement, and how gets the support of the movement as a results will be the candidate I support during the 2008 primary season. Right now, for many reasons, the candidate most willing and able to do that is John Edwards. Barack Obama has certainly shown some ability in this realm, considering his 250,000 member Facebook group, and the 3,500 person, volunteer organized rally for him ten days ago Virginia. However,
Obama still seems to be mystified by his movement supporters, more than anything else. If Obama is going to receive a more serious look from me, he is going to have to start embracing all of the remarkable activism that is being done on his behalf. And yes, there are other candidates who have potential too. Depending on how they act in the coming months, virtually every candidate (not Biden) comes to mind, even Hillary Clinton (although
I'm not exactly holding my breath on that one).
Anyway, I hope that explains where I am coming from here. I have both a deep feeling for, and a strong belief in, mass progressive movements. I want to taste it again in 2008.
