Just as civil rights leaders faced the choice between gradualism and immediacy in their struggle for reform, the Democratic Party now must choose how fast to implement Barack Obama’s promised change. In his November 16, 2008 article for the Chicago Tribune, Mike Dorning discusses this dilemma of balancing idealistic goals with pragmatic methods. On the one hand, with the election of Obama and a Democratic majority in Congress, some Democrats advocate an aggressive pursuit of party goals such as universal health care. Dorning draws parallels between the 2008 election and Lyndon B. Johnson’s election in 1964, the last time a Democratic candidate received such a large portion of the popular vote. Democrats in favor of immediate and expansive action believe “an aggressive approach would be worth even the midterm losses in Congress, as Johnson suffered in 1966 when conservative congressional districts reacted against his aggressive ‘Great Society’ legislative program. The victories Johnson secured produced a durable legacy of sweeping social change, including civil rights, voting rights protection and Medicare and Medicaid (Dorning).”
On the other hand, many believe that a moderate course would be better for the future of the party, even if it sacrifices an immediate advantage. House Majority Whip James Clyburn argues that “We need to have a measured approach. I don’t think we need to be lurching left or right […] Barack Obama has made it clear he wants to have a bipartisan approach. He ran that kind of campaign. How he’s got to govern that way (Dorning).”
Realism similarly tempered the idealism of Martin Luther King Jr. during the Civil Rights Movement. King was well-versed in Hegel’s philosophy and often borrowed his dialectic model, the belief that “truth is found neither in the thesis nor the antithesis, but in an emergent synthesis which reconciles the two (Washington 491).” He adopted nonviolent coercion as a means of social change precisely because it “an answer to the long debated question of gradualism versus immediacy (Washington 488) through a Hegelian synthesis of the two. He believed that it “prevents one from falling into the sort of patience which is an excuse for do-nothingism” while avoiding “the irresponsible words which estrange without reconciling and the hasty judgement which is blind to the necessities of social process (Washington 488).” Unlike the Black Power movement and other radical groups that emerged later in the 1960s, King sought to win over rather than alienate his opponents because he saw the need for unity in the aftermath of the civil rights struggle. He therefore chose a middle ground that catalyzed a social revolution without widespread bloodshed and violence. Although the choice now facing Obama and the Democratic Party is less extreme, I believe King would still champion a moderate course of action that would unite the country. No temporary political advantage is worth dividing the United States against itself.
Works Cited
Washington, James Melvin. A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. San Francisco: Harper Collins.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Ross, I really enjoyed reading your blog post. Many have compared Obama to King throughout the former's Presidential campaign, and in a way it seems fitting to continue that comparison past election. I think that the parallel you draw between King's "middle ground that catalyzed a social revolution," his emphasis on realism as opposed to idealism and pessimism, and the need for Obama to work gradually, and with bipartisan support, is interesting, and valid. However, I think that there is definitely a way that Obama can act quickly and decisively, and perhaps even stray towards the left, while retaining his grip on the middle-ground. This past administration carried our country far over to the right and did so without the advice, restraint, or support of opposing--or even more centrist--politicians. If Obama submits to the checks that a team of different minds and political preferences would no doubt produce--and I think he will--than I think he can move to the left, initially, in order to bring this country back over to the center.
You make a very interesting comparison between Barack Obama's legislative agenda and the Civil Rights movement of MLK. I think, however, that Obama will take a measured gradualist approach, much like MLK's. It is in Obama's self interest to lead this way, as any aggressive push could leave him vulnerable, both in Congress in 2010 and in his own campaign in 2012. He could probably do more over 8 years of leading from the center than in 4 years of aggressive leadership. He also has his own legacy to worry about. Like MLK Obama has professed a philosophy of unity, where he tries to work with, rather than alienate, his opponents.
While I found this blog post to be very well researched, there are two issues I found fault with after I began reading the article, along with comments following the article. First, Obama has supposedly inspired the possibilities of HOPE and CHANGE in the hearts of Americans. Now, it seems as if hope and change may wither away without immediate and drastic policy implementations. Second, a commenter said: "This past administration carried our country far over to the right and did so without the advice, restraint, or support of opposing--or even more centrist--politicians." The commenter went on to say that she believes Obama can bring the country back to the center. My issue with this is how with the incoming congressional and presidential election results?
First, the liberal media portrayed Obama as the person who would bring positive, harmonious, and immediate change to America. If he takes a gradualist approach to America, I believe he will soon be a failure in the eyes of his supporters. His supporters want immediate and drastic social change. So, what happened to hope and change?
Second, I do not believe the current administration is any worse than the next one will be. This is because the Democrats have control of the presidency and a rather large number of the seats in congress. If anything, I believe the tyranny of the Democratic majority will be an attempt to move America to the liberal left.
Finally, if Obama fails to bring forth hope and change, whom will he blame? Surely not his own administration in the White House will face the wrath of Obama's criticism. But will he blame his own Democratic congress? The next four years shall be a true real-life soap opera. Too bad it is the future of the American country and its people at stake.
Ross I think your post introduces a very important issue; how President-Elect Obama will approach changing the nation as was promised. Your parallel between King and Obama is interesting, but I think it may be a bit out of place. While King did advocate marches and protests, never reducing his efforts to violence, he was solely engulfed with gradualism or moderation. King wanted equality, instant and complete. He knew that this was not possible, and consequently decided to adopt this policy of nonviolent coercion while expressing sentiments of fellowship and brotherhood toward whites. I think we should be cognizant of the fact that although King was the voice of a movement, he was still a man. Had there been a way to achieve racial equality in a few days, or months even, that did not involve bloodshed or so strongly embracing his white counterparts, I am not convinced that King would have dismissed such a method. I am simply suggesting that King’s philosophy was not some innate, compelling desire to embrace those that harbored ill-will toward him, it was a practical solution to his problem; inequality. In light of this, the parallel between his moderation and the moderation that Obama will need to effectively bring lasting change loses most of its power.
Post a Comment