| By Ken - Feb 15th, 2008 at 2:18 pm EST |
| Also listed in: Denver County | CivicSatisfaction.org | Broom Brigade | Blue Biz | 1stProtestinTheStreet.Org | Operation Bird Dog- Colorado |
Categories: Equality / Civil Rights, Peace & Social Justice, Economic Fairness & Security, Effective & Ethical Government
This one of the most insightful analysis of Obama/Clintion campaigns that I have read in a long time. It was published on MyDD.com and was written by Shaun Appleby. The anaylsis concerns not the ideals embodies within various policies as annouciated by the candidates on healthcare, national security, etc. but on the real differences in how the campaigns are being run by the managers Patti Doyle (recently replaced by Maggie Williams) and David Plouffe.
But Shaun Appleby doesn't just do a quicky analysis but gives the historical context for how Senators Obama and Clinton have a common factor- Saul Alinsky. What experiences did both candidates draw from Saul's community organizing methodology?
Senator Clinton wrote her honors thesis at Wellesly College on that topic. Furthermore she wrote:
"I agreed with some of Alinsky's ideas," she explained in "Living History," her 2003 biography, "particularly the value of empowering people to help themselves. But we had a fundamental disagreement. He believed you could change the system only from the outside. I didn't."
Appleby writes:
This essential difference has been evident in Obama's strategy for his campaign from the outset. Hillary had the support of the Democratic establishment long before her announcement, the support of party insiders, the unions and private sector alliances carefully built and nurtured from the time she began her Senate run in 2000. Her notion of organising relied on these existing structures from 'within the system' to give her an unchallenged advantage in her bid for the nomination. Not only had she acquired this support but it was so ubiquitous as to effectively deny these resources to any potential opponent.
Obama, while he had institutional support from Democrats in Illinois and a modest circle of supporters within the party, had only his message of political inclusion and an idea which traced it's lineage directly back to the 'people powered' politics of Alinsky and Chicago, with a 21st century twist.
Machine versus the people. I am reminded of Colorado politics and the way the campaigns of Ken Salazar and Mike Miles reflected that dichotomy. The "Party" backed Ken Salazar while the people backed Mike Miles. The high point was the fact that the most ardent, grass roots party activists supported Miles in the face of a well monied machine backed candidate.
My question is this: Obama in his most recent speeches talks about change that will be long lasting. The change that he is referring to is institutional change that will be brought about from the people. As new technologies impact the kinds of candidates that will be running because the people are having a greater voice in party politics.
Change, as Obama and Clinton, talk about is movement change. I would not be surprised that one of the authors that both have read is Bill Moyer, social change activist and his strategic "Movement Action Plan".
Change will not be measured by an election but through decades to affect a society.
Comments are closed for this post.