Perhaps this is a recognition of how dull UK politics seems by comparison. And perhaps it is also because whoever becomes the next US President will be in a uniquely powerful position to steer the world through the aftermath of Iraq, economic downturn and the fall out from the 'war on terror'. The fact that this may well be the first black or woman President simply adds to the anticipation
A lot has been said and written about how Barack Obama's campaign is a grassroots movement. There are claims that it involves local people across the US (many of whom are traditionally disenfranchised from the democratic system) who are speaking with one voice for change. But how real is it? There appear to be five areas where Obama is strong and it is here that his claims to a grassroots agenda must be scrutinised. He is using new media and social networking sites very effectively - particularly Facebook. He is having significant success in fundraising for his campaign and collecting lots of modest donations that together make a big total. And he has mobilised many local people from the Democratic Party to walk the streets and do the face-to-face campaigning - hence his successes in states that have the caucus voting system. He appears to be popular with young people and with the black community - two groups that have been on the fringes on more traditional party politics.
Obama speaks about the need for change and uses very emotive language. But it seems quite difficult to pin him down to specifics. What does he really stand for? How liberal is he? I am not sure but my intuition tells me that I don't feel comfortable with this lack of substance. I hope I am wrong .
My concern is that when the focus groups and the polling tells politicians that the key message should be one of change, then packing this as a grassroots movements can make good social marketing sense. A change agenda has been closely linked to new social movements since the 1980s. It is an easy way of showing how different you are as a politician. Given the weariness that many voters have with the current administration of George W. Bush - from all parts of the political spectrum - there is a logic to running with a change agenda.
But how long will a politician like Obama retain his grassroots instincts once in power or once a change agenda loses it's appeal. One thing is for sure, most people are instinctively conservative in the long run - they like what they know regardless of how much better an alternative might be. Change can very quickly start to feel threatening.
Any real grassroots movement needs to think in terms of devolved power and the distribution of decision making and local voices. Obama appears to me more of the demagogue - speaking with power and passion to stir the crowd.
If Obama betrays the grassroots as his campaign progress to it's ultimate end then we will all suffer. It will be very difficult for future grassroots and bottom-up movements to be credible in the political arena.
What I would like to see is real local leaders giving some evidence of why this is a grassroots movement and how it will change the lives of local people by giving them a voice and power. Currently the people speaking up for Obama's credentials seem to be big player - such as Oprah Winfrey and Ted Kennedy - and not the service user groups, the local voluntary organisations and local activists.
And why should I care, living as I do in the UK? Well, the journey Obama is demonstrating is also resonating with some new directions in UK politics. For example, David Cameron's YouTube experiment and local campaigning groups in healthcare. The US often sets the example and tone for what happens elsewhere.
So, I will reserve judgement on Obama but I will retain a very critical perspective. Summoning grassroots credibility is a serious agenda and not, in my view, something to be done lightly or simply for the marketing potential.
My favourite site for following the US debates is Politico
2 comments:
unfortunately, it seems that obama has co-opted the real idea of a grassroots movement- you are right on when you say that his campaign has become an exercise in social marketing and branding. and he has the charisma to make it extremely successful. perhaps one of the more interesting observations was made by keith olberman in regards to class mobilization- he stated that while obama's supporters were drinking coffee at starbuck's, hilary's were shopping at wal-mart. where obama's message is hitting is upper middle-class voters, many crossing the republican line. and that constituency is generally not active at the "grassroots" level.
we are in an exciting place in the u.s. and i believe i will vote for obama, because next to hilary, he is the progressive candidate. i think it says much that while hilary has taken a large amount of donations from special interest groups and lobbyists, obama has taken absolutely none. his may not be so much as a "grassroots" campaign, but it is one that has been funded to a large extent by citizens.
just a few thoughts from a disillusioned d.c.-ite (and registered socialist voter, to boot)....
Hi Paul
I have been enjoying your blog very much tonight.
I agree when you wrote:
Any real grassroots movement needs to think in terms of devolved power and the distribution of decision making and local voices. Obama appears to me more of the demagogue - speaking with power and passion to stir the crowd.
If Obama betrays the grassroots as his campaign progress to it's ultimate end then we will all suffer. It will be very difficult for future grassroots and bottom-up movements to be credible in the political arena.
I too feel uncomfortable with Obama; I think he is the quintessence of Black African-American tokenism and, as most successful US statesmen, knows exactly where his bread is buttered. The trouble is, though many many US citizens like to be seen as PC and Right-on by their friends but at heart will not want a black man in the White House, they will not vote for him comes the crunch.
Similarly, Hillary Clinton is seen by some as a failed wife and tainted politico and by others as a cynical gold digger. Unless she generates a huge female vote, and I don't think she will as half the women see her as a fool for sticking with a philandering husband - almost a cuckold, though they are more usually male - and the other half see her as a fool for letting 'that woman' get her lips around her husband's bits in such a public manner when it should have been 'her wifely duty' to satisfy him to his needs. Thus, so I don't think she will get into the Oval Office either; quite apart from the Christian Right and the male population not, in the end, wanting a woman in office.
The result is a split Democrat vote. Whoever gets the nomination will lose a good proportion of the other's supporters, who support either side not through a belief in liberal democracy but rather because one is Black and the other female - it is all a good game but I don't think it is healthy for yankee democracy.
So this leaves the Republican, Sen. McCain, who will be 72 as opposed to 46 (Obama) or even 60 (Clinton), thus attracting the 'Baby Bulge' vote. As Ronald Reagan said before he was elected for his second term: "I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience." Reagan went on to beat Mondale in a landslide. As Zelizer, an expert in presidential history, says: "For the vice presidency, we always talk about regional balance. In this case, we're talking about an age balance. McCain's VP candidate will have to be young, fit and healthy." but he also noted that with us all getting older, septuagenarians are playing a far more active role than in Reagan's time: "They're not automatically retiring, they're not retreating to nursing homes. And remember, older voters turn out more than any other age group."
Makes it interesting, as you said, to watch, but I put my money on the Establishment war hero above the Token Black and the strange bird.
Best wishes
Richard Peacocke
Post a Comment