There is a new essay up at The Nation about transformational politics that is worth a read. In it, Eric Schneiderman offers a critique of 'checklist liberalism,' and suggests ways for activist/grassroots organizations to help move the political center of gravity in this country to the left. Early in the essay, Schneiderman gives a good explanation of transformational politics:
Transformational politics is the work we do today to ensure that the deal we can get on gun control or immigration reform in a year--or five years, or twenty years--will be better than the deal we can get today. Transformational politics requires us to challenge the way people think about issues, opening their minds to better possibilities. It requires us to root out the assumptions about politics or economics or human nature that prevent us from embracing policies that will make our lives better. Transformational politics has been a critical element of American political life since Lincoln was advocating his "oft expressed belief that a leader should endeavor to transform, yet heed, public opinion."
What really jumped out at me when I read this was Schneiderman's line about, "challeng(ing) the way people think about issues, opening their minds to better possibilities." To me, this is the most important idea in his essay -- the idea that, above all else, progressive politics should be about transforming people, about helping people change their orientation toward themselves, toward their neighbors, and toward politics more generally.
Transformational politics are not safe, cozy, or simple. Regardless of how unhappy we are with the present, with the status quo, it's actually not easy to change our habits of thought and action. As the child of two therapists, and as someone who has been in and out of therapy for my adult life, I know how much trouble we all have changing our habits, even when these habits are (self-)destructive. Even when we know, for instance, that smoking is devastating our lungs and sapping money from our pocketbooks, we have so much trouble staying away from cigarettes for more than a few days. Changing our habits of thought and action is hard -- it is especially hard when our media helps reinforce these habits on a daily basis. It is nearly impossible when our friends and family work to reinforce these habits.
Despite our sometimes dogged resistance to change, though, we can -- when we are properly inspired -- change our lives for the better. And, despite the weight of conservative institutions, we can change our politics for the better as well.
If we want it enough, we can make it happen.....
Despite the fact that discussions of "change" this election season are often mired in cliche and superficiality, I do believe that the 2008 democratic primary race is, at root, a debate about the possibility (and desirability) of transformational politics.
This fact was driven home for me when I watched the pre-Super Tuesday debate in LA. In the middle of the debate, I turned to my partner and said: "Isn't it amazing how Obama and Clinton structure their arguments in fundamentally opposed ways?" She said: "What do you mean?" "Well, Obama structures his arguments positively -- he is always talking about what could be done that hasn't been done before, what kinds of changes he wants to make. And Clinton structures her arguments negatively. She is talking about dangers and challenges that have to be effectively managed." When I say "negative" and "positive" here, I don't mean them to be value-laden terms. I'm simply talking about the structure of the arguments.....
And it wasn't just the debate that drove this home for me. It was also listening to Clinton and Obama supporters explain why they supported their candidate. More often than not, Clinton supporters will say: "We have a huge number of challenges, and only Clinton is prepared to effectively deal with them." Whereas Obama's supporters more often than not talk about the possibility of transforming the political map, of ushering in a new progressive majority that will be able to pass sweeping reforms and put the left back on the offensive.
It isn't just the rhetoric of the candidates and their supporters, though. You can also see this fundamental difference between the campaigns in their electoral strategies. Clinton's top advisor is Mark Penn, the creator of a theory of niche-based politics. He is always on the lookout for "micro-trends" of public opinion; and he tries to craft messages that speak to various sub-segments of the population. On one level this is a very "reality-based" way to approach politics. You take people where they are, and try to craft a message that resonates with them. The downside to this approach, however, is that sometimes people don't want to be where they are, and don't want to be defined by a narrow interest or identity -- they want to be inspired to change their view of themselves and their habits of thought, and want to see themselves as part of a larger whole. In other words, they don't want to be spoken to as a sub-section of the population (as an interest group); they want to be spoken to as an integral part of a unified whole.
Mark Penn et al. thought that they couldn't possibly lose the primary as long as they could hold onto the right coalition: white women, union households, low income voters, Latinos, etc. They assumed that people were basically static in their approach to politics, and that there were enough reliable Clinton voters, that all they had to do was coast on Clinton's name-recognition and the good-will that Democrats had built up towards the Clintons over the course of the 1990s. What they didn't bank on, however, was the possibility that large numbers of new voters would be inspired to get involved in the primaries, or that people who "should have" supported Clinton would be moved -- transformed even -- by an inspiring appeal to national unity and the possibility of change. They didn't bank on former Republicans flocking to support a progressive democrat. They didn't think that a black candidate who got 80% of the black vote could possibly do well amongst whites in Virginia. You get the picture. Mark Penn et al. weren't ready for what hit them. They weren't banking on political transformation.
But that is what they got. And here we are, about to nominate Barack Obama. Let's hope he and his supporters are right that this country is ready for a new political dispensation. And let's work to make it so.