A republic...if you can keep it

There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: “A republic, if you can keep it.” The brevity of that response should not cause us to under-value its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health.

I often think about that story - and I especially did during the previous Bush administration. Perhaps no moment demonstrated to me more powerfully how close we came to loosing the republic than what Cheney said when asked to comment on the fact that 2/3 of the people in this country didn't support the war in Iraq.



I believe that the Republicans can afford to be viscous in their attacks because - in their hearts - they don't believe in a democratic republic. And they know that a cynical disengaged public allows them free reign to speak platitudes to their base and smear their enemies in an effort to maintain the real power for themselves. We see this almost every election cycle when their fondest wish is low voter turnout. Its certainly the reason they go after groups like ACORN with such vehemence.

But as the quote above suggests - "democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health."

I believe this is part of why Obama often takes the approach that he does. And I'm very grateful to MinistryofTruth who recently re-published Obama's diaries at DailyKos. Because in them, I see Obama laying out the strategy we see now. Here's just a bit of an example.

Beyond that, by applying such tests, we are hamstringing our ability to build a majority. We won't be able to transform the country with such a polarized electorate. Because the truth of the matter is this: Most of the issues this country faces are hard. They require tough choices, and they require sacrifice.<...>

Our goal should be to stick to our guns on those core values that make this country great, show a spirit of flexibility and sustained attention that can achieve those goals, and try to create the sort of serious, adult, consensus around our problems that can admit Democrats, Republicans and Independents of good will. This is more than just a matter of "framing," although clarity of language, thought, and heart are required. It's a matter of actually having faith in the American people's ability to hear a real and authentic debate about the issues that matter.

As a community organizer, I believe that Obama recognizes that the only way to take on the power structure that fights so ruthlessly against our interests and for the interests that line their own pockets is the power of large numbers of people fighting back TOGETHER.

To do that means having dialogue across our differences and helping people be prepared to make sacrifices. As a country - we have a long way to go on all of that. I'm not sure I always have the faith in the American people that Obama demonstrates. Its just that when I try to think of the alternatives, I'm not left with much of anything that is tolerable.

Our challenge then, is to get more people working with us rather than against us...making the coalition so large that it can't be turned away. But coalition work is hard. No one has been clearer about that than Bernice Johnson Reagon in her speech Coalition Politics: Turning the Century (sorry, I can't find a reprint online).

Coalition work is not work done in your home. Coalition work has to be done in the streets. And it is some of the most dangerous work you can do. And you shouldn't look for comfort. Some people will come to a coalition and they rate the success of the coalition on whether or not they feel good when they get there.They're not looking for a coalition; they're looking for a home! <...> You don't get a lot of food in a coalition. You don't get fed a lot in a coalition. In a coalition you have to give, and its different from your home. You can't stay there all the time.<...>

There is an offensive movement that started in this country in the 60's that is continuing. The reason we are stumbling is that we are at the point where in order to take the next step we've got to do it with some folk we don't care too much about. And we got to vomit over that for a little while. We must just keep going.

So I wonder if we're ready for the kind of coalition-building that is required of a democratic republic. I believe that President Obama is inviting us to take on just that kind of challenge. And I also believe that, as Reagon said, it will require us to "vomit over that for a little while."

But the truth is...its a republic, if we can keep it.

How some liberals embrace neocon thinking

Whether it was the USSR during the Cold War or the Axis of Evil during the Bush administration, the failed strategy of the neocons was to try to scare us all into thinking of them as our enemies in order to justify making demands and expecting compliance or going to war. Any talk of diplomacy by those of us on the left was labeled appeasement. Of course, the idea of talking to and treating the opposition with respect was met with cries of naivete.

This has always been infuriating because we know that underneath it all, it is fueled by a deep misunderstanding of human nature, as well as a total lack of comprehension on what diplomacy and negotiation can accomplish.

So I have to wonder why, when we turn from foreign affairs to domestic issues, so many liberals want to embrace the exact same kind of thinking.

Are Republicans all that much more of a threat than the likes of Nikita Khrushchev or Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or Kim Jong-il? So much so that we should not attempt to even talk to them or try to explore common ground?

To tell you the truth, it amazes me to hear so many liberals throw the exact same language at Obama on domestic issues that we heard for decades from the neocons and imperialists about foreign affairs. It makes me wonder just how deep our values run when we reject their ideology so thoroughly in one sphere and embrace it in another.

Here's what I think: like it or not, we are all in this boat together. Before we go off half-cocked thinking its our job to destroy anyone who gets in the way of what we believe is the truth, it might be helpful to see if we can find a way to increase the number of us who are working in the same direction - even if it means giving up a little of our own ground. THAT's the challenge of any kind of meaningful negotiation...knowing when to accommodate and when to draw the line. But to merely assume that the opposition is evil and therefore not worth the attempt is way too reminiscent of the very things we are trying to change with respect to politics and diplomacy.

I'm no more of an optimist than anyone else in thinking that's all there is to it - either in foreign or domestic affairs. But the truth of it is, we've learned that the neocon way of doing foreign policy leads to nothing but failure at best and death and destruction at worst. And lets not even talk about the blowback it engenders.

Isn't it time that we showed the world and ourselves a different possibility? That, regardless of the Republican's lack of maturity when it comes to governing, we can demonstrate what grown-ups act like? Or does even listening to the opposition qualify as appeasement - as the neocons would like us to believe?

I have to wonder how confident we are in our ideas that we think merely being open to dialogue will somehow corrupt them. And when the Republicans either come up with the same-old, same-old failed policies of the past or simply obstruct, do we take that on as our failure or theirs?

For me, believing in my ideals means doing so no matter where they are applied. I no more see Obama being weak and naive in talking to Republicans than I see him as appeasing by being willing to talk to Iran.

I personally would like to challenge the neocon idea that strength is demonstrated by distancing from the opposition and and waging wars of aggression against them when they don't comply with our wishes.

So what is an alternative kind of strength? I think that AikidoPilgrim defined it beautifully in his diary Obama's Soft Power: a primer on Aikido.

Creating this change requires four things from us

1] We must maintain our own balance while taking theirs
2] We must react fearlessly
3] We must enter into the very center of the conflict
4] We must understand our opponent's intentions in order to achieve resolution

When we follow these four steps for creating change, we don't just change the situation, we change our opponents.

They began the interaction wanting to attack us - believing us to be their enemy. By demonstrating our desire to understand them and by manifesting enough concern for them to make sure they don't get hurt - we change their mind, we change their anger, and we change their role.

I think this concept is not only loaded with wisdom, but is just the kind of alternative our world is in need of today. Its pretty foreign to how we've been taught in this culture to think of conflict and will take some practice and getting used to. But haven't we given the neocon alternative enough of an opportunity to show us what a complete disaster it is?

For Obama - its about the principles

Over the last few days, many have complained about the lack of leadership or clarity from the Obama administration on health care reform. As I've said elsewhere, I think some of our problem is that we are perhaps too attuned to the 24-hour news cycle and find ourselves riding the roller coaster of every new media sound-byte that stirs up the controversy needed for their ratings.

But I also feel that we're still in the process of getting used to a different style of leadership than we are accustomed to in a POTUS - especially after GWB's unitary executive approach. I think that the more that we understand that style, the less we'll be vulnerable to much of the media's efforts to stir up discontent and will be able to keep our "eyes on the prize" of knowing our role in the process as advocates.

'm not prepared to make a historical comparison of the style of governing for different Presidents. But I have been watching Obama and feel pretty certain about what I'm seeing in his approach. That might change a bit over time as we experience wins and losses, but I suspect that the core principles will remain the same.

What it basically comes down to is that Obama is in the business of reforming the ways that our government doesn't work right now. We're in the middle of a HUGE effort on health care reform. But teed up right behind that are issues of energy reform, immigration reform, and education reform. I'm sure there is more to come - but those are the ones the Obama administration has identified as next up.

In this process of reform - what Obama tends to do is identify the overall principles of the various reform efforts he wants to see. From that, he'll propose policies that he thinks address those reforms, but states his openness to other ideas that would meet the principles. That last line is what often gets progressives confused and frustrated.

As an example BooMan wrote about this process as it relates to EFCA a few months ago. He quoted from an interview Obama had with the Washington Post about this issue.

Q: The Employee Free Choice Act <...> Is card check the only solution? Or are you open to considering other solutions that might shorten the time?

Obama: I think I think that is a fair question and a good one.

Here's my basic principal that wages and incomes have flatlined over the last decade. <...>

I think the basic principal of making it easier and fairer for workers who want to join a union, join a union is important. And the basic outline of the Employee Fair Choice are ones that I agree with. But I will certainly listen to all parties involved including from labor and the business community which I know considers this to be the devil incarnate. I will listen to parties involved and see if there are ways that we can bring those parties together and restore some balance.

You know, now if the business community's argument against the Employee Free Choice Act is simply that it will make it easier for people to join unions and we think that is damaging to the economy then they probably won't get too far with me. If their arguments are we think there are more elegant ways of doing this or here are some modifications or tweaks to the general concept that we would like to see. Then I think that's a conversation that not only myself but folks in labor would be willing to have. But, so that's the general approach that I am interested in taking.

The basic principle is to make it "easier and fairer for workers who want to join a union." Any proposals, including EFCA, that promote that, he's interested in hearing about.

Similarly, on the issue of health care reform, Obama has laid out some broad principles for any reform.

* Reduce Costs — Rising health care costs are crushing the budgets of governments, businesses, individuals and families and they must be brought under control
* Guarantee Choice — Every American must have the freedom to choose their plan and doctor – including the choice of a public insurance option
* Ensure Quality Care for All — All Americans must have quality and affordable health care

In submitting his budget, Obama elaborated on the principles.

The Administration believes that comprehensive health reform should:

* Reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government
* Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs
* Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans
* Invest in prevention and wellness
* Improve patient safety and quality of care
* Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans
* Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job
* End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions

As he has said many times, he thinks the public option is the best way to address some of these. But he's open to other proposals that might do so.

The benefits of this kind of strategy are twofold as I see it:

1. It marginalizes the Republicans when he invites them to put their ideas on the table and all they have to say is "no."

2. The debate focuses on the strategies. The principles are taken as the playing field on which discussion happens. They are assumed.

I think that a healthy debate about whether or not this is a good approach is very much worth having. And I suspect that over the next few years, we'll have the opportunity to witness its failures and successes.

But I also think that its important to have this kind of big picture in mind when the ugly work of sausage-making legislating is underway.

Hate Unleashed

Last night I watched an interesting segment on Countdown (link to video) where Keith interviewed Melissa Harris-Lacewell. His opening question to her was about whether or not we're seeing racism in this country becoming blatant rather than hidden behind euphemisms.

At one point in the conversation, Melissa talked about the cumulative effect of things like having an African American President, a female Secretary of State and a Latina on the Supreme Court. She goes on to say:

That kind of change in America produces a great deal of anxiety for people who are not quite sure that governing amongst women and brown and black people constitutes real American government.

I think she captures much of what I've been feeling about what's behind the fear we see these wingnuts expressing. As I wrote recently in an essay about The children of 1969, we're now seeing the effects of affirmative action in our halls of power - and particularly the affirmative action that began at Ivy League schools in 1969. The face of power in this country is changing. And that scares some people.

All of that reminded me of a book I read last year by David Jensen titled The Culture of Make Believe. In it, Jensen takes us on his own journey to try to understand the roots of hate and violence in this country - covering everything from the genocide of Native Americans, slavery, sexism, subjugation of worker's rights, and the exploitation of our environment.

Ultimately he finds the common thread in our attempts to objectify everyone and everything. And that, he feels, comes from a sense of entitlement.

I have spent the past several hours now thinking about the notion that masters "shall be entitled to their labor," and at the risk of overstating, it seems to me that entitlement is key to nearly all atrocities, and that any threat to perceived entitlement will provoke hatred.

He then goes on to say that, as long as that entitlement is honored, the hatred becomes transparent and difficult to identify...what Keith referred to in his initial question to Melissa as "hidden behind euphemisms." But once it is challenged - it explodes.

From the perspective of those who are entitled, the problems begin when those they despise do not go along with—and have the power and wherewithal to not go along with—the perceived entitlement. <...>

Several times I have commented that hatred felt long and deeply enough no longer feels like hatred, but more like tradition, economics, religion, what have you. It is when those traditions are challenged, when the entitlement is threatened, when the masks of religion, economics, and so on are pulled away that hate transforms from its more seemingly sophisticated, "normal," chronic state—where those exploited are looked down upon, or despised—to a more acute and obvious manifestation. Hate becomes more perceptible when it is no longer normalized.

Another way to say all of this is that if the rhetoric of superiority works to maintain the entitlement, hatred and direct physical force remains underground. But when that rhetoric begins to fail, force and hatred waits in the wings, ready to explode.

I think this captures very well what we're seeing today. The entitlement enjoyed by our white male patriarchy is being challenged in the halls of power - especially in its most visible manifestation to the whole country, ie, the federal government.

As long as the gains for "others" were held in check so that they could be cordoned off as "identity politics," that entitlement to the ultimate power was maintained. But now we have women and people of color moving into the top seats of power where they are positioned to represent everyone. I believe that this is an ultimate challenge to entitlement and therefore threatens the construct at its roots.

This has unleashed the anxiety - fear - and yes, even the hatred that was shoved under the surface for the past 40 years or more. It was always there - as long as those "others" knew their place and didn't challenge the entitlement too seriously. But the lid has been blown off and we're all getting a pretty good view of the ugly underbelly in the backlash.

It reminds me of something professionals who work in the field of domestic violence have known for a long time...when a woman who has been abused leaves or finds a way to challenge the power of her abuser, it is at that moment that the most serious violence is probable.

In saying all of this, I'm not suggesting that we give in to our own fear and hatred for this kind of thing. As a matter of fact, I think we need to do just the opposite...keep our eyes on the prize and continue moving forward. As Martin Luther King, Jr. counseled so long ago:

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Here's hoping that enough of us have seen the light and can embrace these changes rather than fear/hate them. If so, we might deal another death blow to the idea of entitlement.

On giving your opponent a headache

Last week I wrote about some of Al Gioradno's reporting on the ground from Honduras. Namely, I was interested in the fact that coup resisters in Honduras were learning from the Otpur movement in Serbia.

This week, Giordano provides a first-hand account of advice given to the Honduran resisters by Ivan Marovich, the "Serbian resistance veteran who had been invited by local and national anti-coup organizations to share his experiences." Namely, here's his response to a question about how to give your opponent a headache. I think its an amazing lesson for all organizers - no matter what battle is raging.

The whole game is to calculate the next steps, to put the adversary in a position where he can’t react well.<...>

This is what we called a “Dilemma Action.”<...>

So what we wanted to have is a dilemma action in which the opponent is going to regret whatever he does.

The fist thing that we did, when we were still ten people, is we took a big barrel and a baseball bat. We wrote on the barrel: “Money for Milosevic.” It said we’re collecting money for Milosevic’s retirement. If you have money, put in the barrel. If you don’t have money, beat on the barrel. And Milosevic’s photo was on the barrel. So we put it on the street and walked away.

People walking by read the sign and began banging the barrel. Because of that noise, four more people came. And when they read it everyone started banging the barrel. This made a very loud noise. Finally somebody called the police. The police came and asked, “Who’s barrel is this?” Nobody knew. The police didn’t know what to do.

If the police had left the barrel there, people would keep banging the barrel. If they took the barrel, well, that is not their job. Finally somebody ordered them to take the barrel. We took photos of them and gave them to the media which reported, “POLICE ARREST BARREL.” So whatever they would do, they were going to regret it. And they regretted it because the very next day every town in the country had a barrel in its town square.

This is an example of how you create headaches for the adversary. The system, the regime, they have procedures. They have the way they do things. They don’t rely on creativity. They don’t rely on taking initiative. They totally rely on their procedures and on following orders. They don’t know how to react in certain situations. And that’s when they start making mistakes.

As the saying goes, never interrupt your opponent when he’s making mistakes.

Marovich goes on to describe how the system likes demonstrations - they know how to react to them. So in order to be effective in opposition - a movement needs to develop alternative actions that catch the system off-guard without a procedural playbook.

I can't help but think about what a headache the whole Obama administration has been for the Republicans. They need to oppose the Supreme Court nominee - but in doing so, they alienate most women and Latino voters in the country. They need to hang onto their base - but in doing so, they are required to kow-tow to the Limbaughs of the world and to the birthers. Its been an amazing spectacle to watch.

But now, I wonder if progressives don't need to try and figure out how to give the Max Baucus' and Ben Nelson's of the world a headache. Got any ideas?

What is our alternative to the birthers, teabaggers, astroturphers?

As far as I'm concerned, we've managed to document and understand the reactions we're seeing come from the birthers, teabagers, astroturphers pretty well. We've expressed our outrage and done our best to show the lunacy of their positions.

If, as many of us believe, we are in the midst of the next evolution of the battle against racism and privilege, I begin to wonder what we, as progressives, bring to the table as the antidote to the hate and fear that the wingers are espousing. Certainly we want to see universal health care. But we all know that the battle that is raging is about more than that. So I ask myself what the vision is that we are offering as an alternative and how that vision can ground us in the heat of the battle.

Recently jessical wrote a diary spurring much thought for me about that question.

We are all living with a burden of shame and fear and anger, and in every single moment of your life, in every action, you invite decency and grace, or you invite violence and hate. Sometimes, sometimes, you get the violence and hate anyway. But if you feed it...that is always what you will get. That doesn't make it right or deserved. But if progressivism is about anything to me, it is about the very long fight for human dignity.

I'd guess that most of us would agree that a sense of human dignity for all is a foundational principle/value of progressivism. But if you're like me, believing in human dignity does not always ensure that I treat others in my life accordingly. Since I'm a real believer in the counsel of Gandhi when he said "Be the change you want to see in the world," I think working on that is the foundation of any successful movement for change.

When Obama talks about the "empathy deficit" we face in this country - I believe this is what he's referring to. In order to treat others with a sense of human dignity, we must be able to put ourselves in their shoes and understand their struggles and point of view as much as we possibly can.

A while ago, Nezua at the Unapologetic Mexican, did a series on finding the nexus between all of our "isms" - or our sense of privilege and exceptionalism. In the first installment of that series he found the nexus in our sense of entitlement (another word for privilege) and finds the antidote in humility and gratitude.

And after all, what happens when we remove that sense of entitlement?

We grow humility.

What happens when you nurture a sense of humility in place of entitlement? You place your feet on the same ground as I. You remove racism without really chasing "racism." You remove environmental harm without getting caught up in side arguments. You remove sexism without feeling less-than as a man. You remove road rage. You remove exploitation. You remove rape. And you join with others in the understanding that you are not entitled to a damn thing. Nope. Entitlement is the antithesis of gratitude. And honestly, you are one lucky human.

I think that Lynne Twist identified most powerfully for me the reasons we lack this sense of humility and gratitude in her book The Soul of Money when she talks about the myth of scarcity and the need to replace that with the concept of sufficiency. Here's how she describes the impact of the scarcity model.

Whether we live in resource-poor circumstances or resource-rich ones, even if we're loaded with more money or goods or everything you could possibly dream of wanting or needing, we live with scarcity as an underlying assumption. It is an unquestioned, sometimes even unspoken, defining condition of life. It is not even that we necessarily experience a lack of something, but that scarcity as a chronic sense of inadequacy about life becomes the very place from which we think and act and live in the world. It shapes our deepest sense of ourselves, and becomes the lens through which we experience life...

This internal condition of scarcity, this mind-set of scarcity, lives at the very heart of our jealousies, our greed, our prejudice, and our arguments with life, and it is deeply embedded in our relationship with money.

In contrast, here's how she talks about sufficiency.

We each have the choice in any setting to step back and let go of the mind-set of scarcity. Once we let go of scarcity, we discover the surprising truth of sufficiency. By sufficiency, I don't mean a quantity of anything. Sufficiency isn't two steps up from poverty or one step short of abundance. It isn't a measure of barely enough or more than enough. Sufficiency isn't an amount at all. It is an experience, a context we generate, and a declaration, a knowing that there is enough, and that we are enough...

When we live in the context of sufficiency, we find a natural freedom and integrity. We engage in life from a sense of our own wholeness rather than a desperate longing to be complete...

When we let go of the chase for more, and consciously examine and experience the resources we already have, we discover our resources are deeper than we knew or imagined.

It seems to me that, when we can come to the place where we believe we are/have enough, we can find gratitude, humility and empathy for others. In so doing, we can treat everyone with a sense of human dignity and live out the "be the change we want to see in the world." I know its much more of a struggle than just writing those words in a diary. I live that struggle daily and fail way too often.

But when I find myself reacting to the wingers and the havoc they create in both our culture and our politics, I need to at least ground myself in the vision of what I see as the alternative to their message. I find that vision in a sense of gratitude, sufficiency and empathy.

I suspect that many of us have had the experience of trying to talk to the wingers in our families, neighborhoods, and places of employment. In doing so, we know that reasoned arguments don't tend to have much of an impact. I believe that this is because they are operating from a sense of scarcity which breeds fear and overcomes reason. So in closing, I'll share something written by one of my favorite poets, David Whyte. It captures for me what a sense of sufficiency has to offer.

Loaves and Fishes

This is not
the age of information.

This is not
the age of information.

Forget the news,
and the radio,
and the blurred screen.

This is the time
of loaves
and fishes.

People are hungry
and one good word is bread
for a thousand.

-- David Whyte

On Moving Forward - Generational Shifts

I would suspect that most generational shifts are hard to recognize when you're in he middle of them. But based on some of my professional experience as well as watching electoral politics in this country, I think we're beginning to see some generational shifts in the African American community that are affecting all of us.

Certainly the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States gives the nation and the world an opportunity to see this new generation of African American leadership at work. As I've tried to watch and capture what that change indicates, I see that Obama has signaled many of the subtleties in speeches he made both on the campaign trail and since he's been in office. 

Perhaps the most dramatic was when he gave what we've now come to call the race speech. In it, Obama went wide and deep in laying out his view of the racial tensions that continue to exist in this country. But ultimately, there was a theme that developed about where we need to go. In the midst of acknowledging all of the very real conflicts that exist around racism, he talked about what we need to do to move forward.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. <...>

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American. <...>

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.<...>

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

I heard many of these same themes in Obama's Cairo speech. Again, he laid out the particulars of why the various tensions exist both in the Middle East and with the rest of the world. But he calls on us all to find a way to work together and move forward.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

The message I hear is that we need to acknowledge the past and the tensions it has brought us. But we also need to find a way to move forward...together. If we're ever going to get beyond the stalemates of the past, it will be because we are able to recognize the stake we have in each other - regardless of our past grievances - and find a way to move forward in addressing our common interests. And this applies to our relationships with other countries as well as to those we have deemed to be "other" here in the U.S.

But I've also noticed that this kind of message is not just coming from Obama. Way back in August 2008, Matt Bai wrote an article for the New York Times Magazine titled Is Obama the End of Black Politics? In it, he examined the generational shifts happening in political leadership within the African American Community.

Black leaders who rose to political power in the years after the civil rights marches came almost entirely from the pulpit and the movement, and they have always defined leadership, in broad terms, as speaking for black Americans. They saw their job, principally, as confronting an inherently racist white establishment, which in terms of sheer career advancement was their only real option anyway.<...>

This newly emerging class of black politicians, however, men (and a few women) closer in age to Obama and Jesse Jr., seek a broader political brief. Comfortable inside the establishment, bred at universities rather than seminaries, they are just as likely to see themselves as ambassadors to the black community as they are to see themselves as spokesmen for it.

One of the emerging African American leaders that Bai profiled was Cory Booker, Mayor of Newark, New Jersey. He is a fascinating young man who was also interviewed by Bill Moyers back in March 2008. You can watch the video of this interview here (25 minutes). As I recently watched this interview again, I was struck by some of the same themes we've been hearing from Obama.

Well, I don't want us to be an America that is sanitized, homogenized, "deodorized" as a friend of mine says, and forgets about race. The richness of America is that we are diverse. We're not Sweden. We're not Norway. We are a great American experiment. And as soon as we start trying to forget race or turn our back on race, number one, we don't confront the real racial realities that still persist. But, number two, is we miss the great delicious opportunities that exist in America and no where else.

So, I don't want to be a race transcending leader. I want to be deeply understood as a man, as African- American, as a Christian, all that I am. But, ultimately it's a portal to punch through to a deeper and more textured, more nuanced understanding of the beauty and the brilliance of America. So, that involves a difficult conversation -- not a sound bite.<...>

What I'm trying to say is that you can get so caught up in looking for blame. Who's to blame? Is society to blame? Is it white folks to blame? Is it the prisoner himself to blame? But at some point in America, we're going have to get beyond blame and start accepting responsibility.<...>

But, I'm already getting fatigued with the conversation, and feeling that there's a dearth of action. That it may be in vogue right now because of this presidential election to talk about race, to study and to flip it over. But at the end of the day, is it gonna motivate action? We had the courage to deplore the reality in which we live, but will we show the equal courage to do something about it? Not wait. Not point a finger. Not sit and have debates about a divided America. But, to get into the trenches, to roll up your sleeves, to do the hard, difficult work it takes to manifest the greatness of this nation.

Yep...that's what resonated with me...roll up your sleeves and do the hard, difficult work. Its exactly what I'm hearing from the emerging African American leaders in my community. They too are tired of talking about things and arguing over who is to blame for the problems that exist. They just want to get busy working together to fix it. And any partners that are ready to do that are the ones they're looking for.

I think I'll leave it to others to compare and contrast this attitude to previous generations. But as a boomer myself, I think it behooves us to take a look at this and begin to understand what it is these young leaders are saying and where its coming from.

What I hear most of the time is an honoring of what previous generations have accomplished, but also an awareness that the job is not done and that different approaches are necessary for them to take on the tasks that are in front of them today. And while I don't think that we should just abandon all we learned about the struggle and abdicate our role in it today, we need to hear what these young voices are saying and take it to heart.

To close, here's a beautiful piece that was written by a leader from the Civil Rights era reflecting on his experience of Obama's inauguration. I think it captures his recognition of the passing of the torch beautifully. From the Rev. Gordon Stewart, who marched with King in Chicago and experienced race riots in Illinois and Wisconsin:

They are strange tears, like none other I have ever felt. It confuses me. I wonder what they're about. It feels like joy. A joy I have not felt for a long time. Joy... and hope... that something really new is happening. Joy that all the struggles and all the marches that wore holes in my generation's shoes on behalf of civil rights and peace have brought us to this indescribably holy moment that transcends the old divisions.

For sure, the tears that rise up in me are tears of joy. But they're also about something else. They feel like the convulsing sobs of a prisoner released from prison. They come from a hidden well of poison -- the well of deep grief stuffed away over all the years because of all the marches, all the beatings, all the blood, the well of buried anger -- the silent tears of grief over the America we had almost lost.

Then I realize: Only the appearance of joy and hope can release such deep grief. It was the joy on Yo-Yo Ma's face that finally released the poison locked inside my soul. It is the joy and hope of a new generation that's able to take us where my generation cannot -- free of the taint of sore feet and scars and old grudges the new President says we must move past.

Either I do it or it won't get done

I don't know whether the universe conspires to send us messages when we're ready for them or if they're always there and we just notice them when we're ready. All I know is that over the last couple of weeks I've been hearing something that seems to be coming through loud and clear. So I think its time to pay attention.

The message I've been hearing is captured by the title of this diary...either I do it or it won't get done.

This first came through a couple of weeks ago when I had the privilege of attending a speech by Geoffrey Canada, founder of The Harlem Children's Zone. In case you haven't heard of this initiative, 20 years ago Canada took on 100 blocks of Harlem and made the commitment that he and those he worked with would "do whatever it takes" to help the children in that area grow up healthy and strong. His work has been so acclaimed that communities all over the country are trying to replicate it and Obama has promised to include funding for such initiatives as part of his urban agenda.

Having heard Canada in person before and seen him interviewed on TV, I knew we'd walk away from his presentation both challenged and fired up. He did not disappoint. His speech was rebroadcast yesterday on Minnesota Public Radio so you can go listen to the whole thing if you'd like.

But he started off with a challenge that stuck with me. He said that just as most in this country ignored the few economists who warned us of a coming economic crisis, he feels that no one is listening when he tries to warn us about a crisis with our children. Our policies have been consistent over time..."Don't educate them early - lock them up later." And as we continue those policies, we're not only letting the children down, but we're also bankrupting ourselves and heading towards becoming a second-rate nation.

Canada went on to say that these policies continue because we tend to sit back and think that someone "in charge" has the answers and wait for them to fix it.

If you care about our children - you're going to have to save them. Either you do it or it won't get done.

The second way this message came through for me recently was thanks to a diary by Inky99 where he linked to an article by Derrick Jensen titled Beyond Hope. Jensen uses the word "hope" in a more specific way than some of us might.

I’m not, for example, going to say I hope I eat something tomorrow. I just will. I don’t hope I take another breath right now, nor that I finish writing this sentence. I just do them. On the other hand, I do hope that the next time I get on a plane, it doesn’t crash. To hope for some result means you have given up any agency concerning it.<....>

When we realize the degree of agency we actually do have, we no longer have to “hope” at all. We simply do the work.<...>

When we stop hoping for external assistance, when we stop hoping that the awful situation we’re in will somehow resolve itself, when we stop hoping the situation will somehow not get worse, then we are finally free—truly free—to honestly start working to resolve it. I would say that when hope dies, action begins.

This seemed to fit so well with what I had been left pondering from Canada's speech...the end of waiting for someone else or something else to fix things. But Jensen takes it even further. He talks about what happens inside of us when we let that kind of hope die.

When you give up on hope, something even better happens than it not killing you, which is that in some sense it does kill you. You die. And there’s a wonderful thing about being dead, which is that they—those in power—cannot really touch you anymore...You come to realize that when hope died, the you who died with the hope was not you, but was the you who depended on those who exploit you, the you who believed that those who exploit you will somehow stop on their own, the you who believed in the mythologies propagated by those who exploit you in order to facilitate that exploitation.<...>

And who is left when that you dies? You are left. Animal you. Naked you. Vulnerable (and invulnerable) you. Mortal you. Survivor you. The you who thinks not what the culture taught you to think but what you think. The you who feels not what the culture taught you to feel but what you feel. The you who is not who the culture taught you to be but who you are.<...>

When you give up on hope, you turn away from fear.

And when you quit relying on hope, and instead begin to protect the people, things, and places you love, you become very dangerous indeed to those in power.

In case you’re wondering, that’s a very good thing.

I know that some might have problems with how Jensen has used the word hope - I know that I did. But it made me think...and that's a good thing. I'll still continue to be hopeful that we can do things like create a world that works for all of our children. But the truth is... either I do it or it won't get done.

On knowing when to make a u-turn

Several seemingly divergent thoughts are roaming in my head today and so I thought I might find the threads of connection by trying to write about them.

The foremost is about an experience I had at work this week. To explain, it will take giving some background...so here it is. We have been working with a neighborhood in our city that has identified a desire to develop some different ways of handling groups of kids who roam the streets and scare the residents. The subtext here is that most of the kids who scare people are African American and most of the adults who are scared (and angry) are working class white people. The neighborhood is in transition as the working class jobs leave the area and families of color who are trying to escape the violence of urban areas like Chicago, Detroit, etc. move in. So race and class tensions are very real and this is one place they are being demonstrated.

In that context, we have been holding weekly meetings with 20-30 adults in the neighborhood to talk about this problem for the last couple of months. This week, the neighbors were talking about what to do when you're driving down a street and a large group of kids is walking in the street blocking the way. The mostly white adults were stuck - recognizing their fear of confronting the kids, but being angry as hell about it.

At one point, they asked the African American man we had brought in as a guest participant what he does in those situations. His response was simple...I make a u-turn and find another route. On the surface, that sounds simple enough. But to me, it pointed out the way that white privilege can often blind us to obvious solutions. And I thought of this quote from Nezua again.

Mi novia says that it really frustrates White people that no matter how much they know or want to know, there may be an area of experience or knowledge that they cannot access. <...>

This is another way of saying White Privilege.

And I also thought of this quote from H.L. Menken.

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it.

I suppose its sometimes a good thing that we have embedded deep in our psyche as white Americans that we can solve any problem and remove any barrier in the process. But I also think that its possible that we are fooling ourselves with that into a kind of control scheme that places our desires above those of others we don't understand and blinds us to answers that simply let others BE in the process.

In the midst of all of this, I'm also thinking deeply about some of the work Obama is doing on our relationship with the Muslim world - especially through his speech in Cairo. Here's a fascinating point that Al Giordano made about it.

An interesting footnote (well, something much bigger than a footnote for millions of Muslim and Arab youth) is that ten leading Egyptian dissidents have been invited to attend the speech, including former presidential candidate and political dissident Ayman Nur and members of the banned “Muslim Brotherhood” organization. Actions like their inclusion drive a stake between Al Qaida and potential young recruits from the universities, cities and towns throughout the Muslim regions. No wonder bin Laden – who was raised and educated as a member of the elite in Saudi Arabia, the first stop on the President’s tour - is upset: the Arabian rug is being pulled out from under the future of his violent political prescriptions. In recent decades, groups like Al Qaida have thrived largely because the paths for peaceful means to political change and participation have been blocked by states like Egypt. If the invitation of the dissidents to attend Obama’s speech indicates a path back into democratic participation by legitimate critics and social movements in US-friendly but not-very-democratic states like Egypt (a prospect which remains to be seen) the siren call of violent opposition would soon become no more than a whimper.

That made me think about a recent u-turn we made at work and I got to wondering if Obama isn't doing something similar. In our case, we've had difficulty working with other youth-serving non-profits in our area that are run by people of color who grew up in the 60's and 70's during the Civil Rights era. Many see an organization like ours - run by a white woman - as part of the establishment to be fought against, and perhaps rightly so. But when we want to collaborate and learn...the door is closed due to what happened in the past and the assumptions they make in carrying that forward into the future. So at one point, a very wise person counseled us to make a u-turn...ignore those old battles and look for collaboration with the up and coming new leaders in the communities of color. We've done that with great success and are in the midst of working with young people of color to develop the future leadership in our organization.

Just how many times yesterday did Obama talk about not getting caught up in the past? I don't imagine that, as POTUS, he can make a u-turn and simply ignore the leadership in the Middle East that is caught up in old battles. But in the midst of having to deal with the current situation, I DO think he's once again demonstrating that he's playing the "long game." By that, I mean that I think he is playing for the hearts and minds of the next generation of the Muslim world. From some of the reports I've seen, the reviews contain a bit of skepticism, but are overall positive.

A strategy like this will take years to bear fruit. But if it is a plan that Obama sustains over his 4 (hopefully 8) years in office, I definitely think he's on the right track.

Cruel and Unusual

Did you ever make a mistake when you were 13 years old? Hang around with the wrong people? Go to the wrong places? Take risks with your behavior?

Well, imagine that in addition, you're a black or brown 13 year old who has lived a lifetime with neglect, abuse, poverty, crime, and drug abuse. Imagine the kinds of "mistakes" you might make.

Do you deserve to spend the rest of your life in prison?



Well, in this United States of America, that's exactly what has happened to 73 children who were sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole for crimes that were committed when they were 13 or 14 years of age. All of this according to a report by the Equal Justice Initiative.

Here's just one of their stories from an article in NYU's Office of Public Affairs:

Antonio Nunez was 14 when, in April 2001, he left a party in California with two men nearly twice his age. One of the men later claimed to be a kidnapping victim. When police chased their car and shots were fired, Antonio — along with the 27-year-old driver — was arrested. No one was injured, but Antonio was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with no chance of parole. Just a year before, Antonio was shot multiple times while riding his bicycle near his house in South Central Los Angeles. His brother, 14, was fatally shot in the head when he ran to help Antonio.

And some data from the report:

The U.S. is the only country in the world known to have condemned 13- and 14-year-old children to imprisonment until death.

Most of these young children were accomplices to adults or older teens who were more culpable for the crime.

Most of the 73 suffered years of severe abuse and neglect. Some tried to commit suicide as young as age eight.

Children of color are disproportionately sentenced to die in prison. Of the 73 children identified, roughly two-thirds are people of color; nearly half are African American.

Most of these kids are from poor families and received grossly inadequate legal representation. Court-appointed attorneys failed to file post-conviction appeals and never challenged the death-in-prison sentence in most of these cases.

All of the 73 have been sent to adult prisons, where many are the target of horrendous physical and sexual assault by adult inmates.

In terms of international standards of decency, the U.S. finds itself alone on this one. In a United Nations resolution calling to abolish life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for children, the vote came out 185 to 1—the U.S. was the lone dissenter. 

But here's the potential for some good news about all of this: the Supreme Court has decided to review two such cases this fall, both are from Florida and neither one involved murder.

One of the cases to be considered, that of Joe Sullivan, clearly demonstrates the horrendous nature of this practice.

In 1989, someone raped a 72-year-old woman in Pensacola, Fla. Joe Sullivan was 13 at the time, and he admitted that he and two older friends had burglarized the woman’s home earlier that day. But he denied that he had returned to commit the rape.

The victim testified that her assailant was “a colored boy” who “had kinky hair and he was quite black and he was small.” She said she “did not see him full in the face” and so would not recognize him by sight. But she recalled her attacker saying something like, “If you can’t identify me, I may not have to kill you.”

At his trial, Mr. Sullivan was made to say those words several times.

“It’s been six months,” the woman said on the witness stand. “It’s hard, but it does sound similar.”

The trial lasted a day and ended in conviction. Then Judge Nicholas Geeker, of the circuit court in Escambia County, sentenced Mr. Sullivan to life without the possibility of parole.

“I’m going to send him away for as long as I can,” Judge Geeker said.

As to Joe's representation in this case:

Mr. Sullivan’s trial, for instance, lasted a day. He was represented by a lawyer who made no opening statement and whose closing argument occupies about three double-spaced pages of the trial transcript. The lawyer was later suspended, and the Florida Bar’s Web site says he is “not eligible to practice in Florida.”

There was biological evidence from the rape, but it was not presented at the trial. When Mr. Sullivan’s new lawyers recently sought to conduct DNA testing on it, they were told that the state had destroyed it in 1993.

Joe Sullivan, now 33 years old, has served 20 years of his life sentence so far. I don't know about you, but it doesn't take much empathy for me to see that this is cruel and unusual. Even if he committed this crime (which looks very suspicious to me), we don't even consider 13 year-olds mature enough to drive cars. How can we think that they should be held responsible FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES for something they did as children? Leonard Pitts answers that question in his Open Letter to African American Men.

I'm weary of the truth in that old Richard Pryor line about how he went to court looking for justice and that's what he found. Just us.

Contrary to what society has told us, to what so much of our music claims and to what too many of us have internalized, the reason isn't that we carry some kind of criminal gene. No, it's that we don't get second chances, don't have the same margin for error a white guy would. One strike, and you're out.

As Senator Jim Webb has said, there are many reforms to our so-called "criminal justice system" that are necessary. I strongly support his efforts and in the meantime hope that this fall the SCOTUS finally gets this one right.