Representing the forces of light, Robin Hood (on the left) battles Sir Guy of Gisbourne and the forces of darkness
To use an historical analogy, were Robin Hood to abandon Sherwood Forest along with his band of merry men and emerge from his days battling the forces of evil in the wooded wilderness, one shouldn't assume that he would necessarily set up shop to replace the despised Sheriff of Nottingham.
In recent weeks, the Republican Party would have us believe that is exactly what Barack Obama's trying to do.
The title of this diary suggests an absurd and unimaginable radical change and one not to be interpreted literally. It would be difficult to visualize a champion of the poor and working classes (Robin Hood) all of a sudden altering his life's course and transforming himself into becoming an authoritarian defender (Sheriff of Notingham) of the ruling, moneyed elite and its corrupt institutional practices.
Robin would never do that. Nonetheless, it still raises a few interesting questions.
The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.
-- Hannah Arendt, US (German-born) historian & social philosopher
The obvious questions implicit in Arendt's statement are not difficult to discern:
- How long does it take before a group of insurgents become the establishment?
- Can revolutionary fervor and zeal cultivated while in the opposition translate into effective governance?
- How much of its agenda can the revolutionaries implement?
- At some point in this transformation, does the new king begin to resemble the old despised monarch?
There is a price one pays for taking on new challenges and for traveling down the road from opposition to governance. In making the transformation from a presidential candidate to becoming President of the United States, Lyndon Johnson famously observed once that you need two kinds of horses. The first kind is one you ride during the campaign; once elected, however, you need to switch horses to govern the country.
In recent months, the question has been asked as to what will happen to the incredible energy and excitement created by the Obama Campaign that propelled it to an impressive victory in last November's election. Can it be bottled and unleashed at critical points during his administration to achieve policy ends?
A recent article in Britain's 'Prospect' magazine underscores this dilemma
With the inauguration over, the compatibility problems between a popular campaign movement and the tricky compromises of government are becoming obvious. Obama's 13m supporters and 3m donors can neither relocate en masse to Washington nor be consulted on every law, while door-knocking alone doesn't solve most political problems. In short, "movement" into "government" doesn't go...
But while junior jobs are being doled out to true believers, the big jobs have been carved up between old Clinton-era hands and established Washington insiders. Few such people show the slightest interest in a new style of "bottom-up" government. Indeed, against the backdrop of the financial crisis, a premium has been put on steady, traditional decision making...
Yet Obama wasn't misrepresented in his desire to do things differently. In particular, he is on record as saying he wanted to build his campaign—and his administration—from the "bottom up"; by following the lessons of his time as a community organiser in Chicago. But it is here that both Obama's technophile admirers and liberal backers misunderstand him. For him, the term "bottom up" doesn't mean bloggers, coders or geeks. Instead, it means following the "organising" theories of thinkers like Saul Alinsky, an intellectual and writer who also organised in the backstreets and communities of Chicago in the 1930s.
:: ::
For restless revolutionaries like Che Guevara, it's always on to the next revolution
... while others like Leon Trotsky try to govern while maintaining their revolutionary zeal but opponents prevent their success
For those of you who are students of history and are familiar with the (mostly) working class-based revolutions that shook the world in recent centuries, this won't surprise you
If we look at that as a defining quality of a "true" revolution -- that it overthrows an existing power structure (rather than being an action to preserve one) -- it becomes clearer that revolution rarely has a good outcome. The French Revolution led to bloodshed, war, and eventually widespread destruction and the loss of a generation of French manhood in the Napoleonic Wars. The Russian Revolution led to Stalin and the death of tens of millions of Soviet citizens in his gulags. The Chinese Revolution led to the deaths of yet more tens of millions of Chinese citizens and a brutal dictatorship. The closest revolution I can think of that had anything approaching a non-bloodbath outcome was the Mexican Revolution in the early part of the 20th century, and even that ended up with the PRI basically ruling the country as a dictatorship for the rest of the century.
In the 21st century, we are generations removed from such explosive revolutions. It has been said that following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the United States became a distinctly anti-revolutionary country. Most democratic countries value stability mixed with incremental change and such change has almost always been propelled by the middle classes. Even so, it is safe to assume that hyberbolic statements by the Rush Limbaughs of this world will continue to engender intense opposition to Barack Obama -- even as charges of socialism didn't get any traction in the campaign.
As the Obama Administration begins to establish a distinct identity over the the coming weeks, months, and years, I would suggest that we all keep in mind the questions raised by Arendt's statement. The public debate in the media will relentlessly focus on Obama's betrayal of his campaign promises. Constant criticism will highlight the endless compromises he will make. The opposition will vilify him for doing things they themselves were unable to achieve. From time to time, the role reversals will amuse, bewilder, enlighten, entertain, confuse, and befuddle us.
This phase of governance may not be sexy in its implementation and will probably lack the theatrics of the primary and general phases of last year's election. It is, as detailed in this 2001 article by Bernie Sanders, also necessary to continue making incremental progress within the constraints of our political system.
And that said, no, Robin Hood's not going to transform himself into the Sheriff of Nottingham.