Last week I experienced emotions that I have not felt before, namely the feeling of happiness at supporting the Democratic presidential nominee.  In previous primaries, I have always supported the most progressive candidate, who eventually lost, and I then half-heartedly cast my vote for the party nominee in the general election.  But not this time.  This year will be different!

But why?  I have been thinking about the phenomenon of Barack Obama and why he has been able to galvanize such huge numbers of diverse supporters.  While credit must be given to his brilliantly run campaign and his personal charisma and style, it seems that the time was ripe for the message of “change” that Obama championed.  In fact, if we look at recent political trends and growing public sentiment, we can almost see this coming.

Going back to the Clinton administration, many progressive Democrats and independents became disillusioned with the corporate-friendly agenda and big-money insider politics.  Unfortunately, progressive voices have become increasingly marginalized within the Democratic Party machinery.  Time and again, progressive voters have been taken for granted and their concerns ignored, while moderate-to-right “Reagan Democrats”, “soccer moms”, and blue-collar “hard working” Americans are obsessively courted in swing state elections.   Over time, it becomes increasingly difficult to stay loyal to a party that needs you but doesn’t seem to want to represent you.

For these reasons, the Green Party candidacy of Ralph Nader was enticing to many progressive voters since it resonated with their disaffection with a dysfunctional political system and especially the corporate control of our government.  While some within the Democratic Party were (and are) especially hostile to the 2000 Nader candidacy, it cannot be denied that Nader’s campaign was a truly people-powered movement that brought in young people, progressives, and independents.  Nader held large “super rallies” not unlike those of Barack Obama, and the campaign survived on small, individual donations.  Even though the final vote for Nader was relatively small, support for his reform policies was actually quite broad.

So in 2004, many progressives turned to an independent-minded candidate within the Democratic Party, Howard Dean.  Dean represented a more grassroots alternative to the typical party-insider candidates, and his campaign was enthusiastically embraced by young people, independents, and those opposed to the Iraq War.  Although it was unable to sustain its early front-runner status, the Dean campaign had a significant impact on future political dynamics through its internet fundraising and netroots support.

Of course, the groundwork for the electronic networking used during the Dean campaign had already been established during the mobilization to stop the Iraq War.  Coalitions of different progressive organizations, labor movements, and religious communities joined in the effort.  Extensive networking groups were established, and internet communication made it possible to mobilize huge turnouts at several protests in DC and NYC along with numerous smaller protests in cities all across the country.   

Sadly, in spite of this popular resistance, the voices of the people were unable to stop the Iraq War, and the seeds were sown for an even deeper distrust in the government.  Certainly, the Bush administration was guilty of lying to the American people, but the Democratic Party was guilty of going along, of not fighting back, of playing politics.  Of course, many Democrats in Congress claimed that they too had been victims of the lies and if only they had known the truth!  So, in 2006, the American people overwhelmingly voted for an end to the Iraq War by giving control of Congress back to the Democrats.  Much to our dismay, however, the Democrats began making concessions before they had even taken control (“impeachment is off the table”) and, a year and a half later, the Democratically-controlled Congress has legalized warrantless wiretapping and provided telecom immunity, has endorsed aggression towards Iran, and has done nothing to end the Iraq War.  

One cannot underestimate the level of frustration that has been building among progressive Democrats as well as the population at large, as evidenced by the abysmal approval ratings of both Bush and Congress.  Given these dynamics, it seems that this current election could not have come at a better time for a reform-minded newcomer like Barack Obama and at a worse time for an establishment party VIP like Hillary Clinton.  Barack Obama appeals to the growing number of progressives and independents who are disaffected with the Democratic Party and believe that a new approach is needed.  The last thing they want is someone whose fundamental asset is experience in and deep ties to a political system that is broken.  On the other hand, Hillary Clinton appeals to many who think that the party is more or less sound but just needs an experienced insider to take charge.  There is really no middle ground between these two camps, which explains the distrust that some supporters on each side have felt for the other.  

However, it is clear that the scales have tipped in Obama’s favor with the growing popular rejection of “politics as usual”.  As such, Obama’s success is not just a mirage or due to some kind of hypnotic spell.  Obama has succeeded by responding to the emerging progressive movement and giving it a voice.  He has not created the movement, but rather the movement has “created” him.  In fact, such movements usually do not begin and end with individual leaders, but instead the leaders serve to motivate and channel the energy and will of the people.  If Obama had lost, I would have been disappointed, as always, but I would have been encouraged by the progress that his candidacy represented. I would have felt that the progressive movement was gaining strength and momentum!  

Possibly this is why the Clinton campaign has not felt like part of a larger social movement to me, in spite of its often-stated feminist theme.  Hillary’s candidacy did not evolve out of grassroots feminism but rather out of the personal identity of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton “brand”.  It in not surprising, then, that the Hillary-or-bust mentality of many of her supporters reflects a campaign centered on an individual leader rather than on broader political convictions.  Moreover, the now-or-never sentiment regarding a female president is inconsistent with the historical realities of social reform movements, which do not begin and end with each victory and defeat but rather evolve over time.  In fact, the Clinton supporters who say they will vote for John McCain cannot be true feminists since they would not defect and abandon their cause so readily.

Instead, it seems that for many Clinton supporters the campaign has become personal.   Many older women, in particular, wanted to see a female president in their own lifetimes, and so in some ways it has become about them.   But true social change is not about our own personal fulfillment, although such longings are understandable, but rather about the long-term benefits for future generations.  As Martin Luther King said so prophetically the night before his assassination:

“Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!”

While Hillary Clinton lost the nomination, the women's movement is not going to collapse because of it.  The struggle to reach the “promised land” will continue.  This is an important point for Obama supporters to keep in mind as well. The campaign of Barack Obama is not about him, the person, but rather about the potential for progressive change in this country.  Of course, his nomination as an African American IS truly historic and his election as president would be monumental.  Our society would be forever changed by the realization of a non-white president, but such a victory would not have come without the previous efforts of other men and women, such as Shirley Chisholm and Jesse Jackson, who challenged the white political structure to be more inclusive and to focus on social justice.  If Obama is elected, our society will change further only in as much as Obama lives up to our hopes and faith in him.

But this is where we must do our part.  We cannot become complacent and self-congratulatory about his victory.  We have to loudly and clearly make our demands heard for a more progressive agenda so that both Obama and the Congressional leaders have the popular support and moral authority to stand up to corporate interests and Republican pressure. We need to advocate for, amongst others, the withdrawal of all military troops AND private military contractors from Iraq, universal (preferably single payer) health care, aggressive environmental policies to address global climate change, renewable energy development and conservation efforts, trade policies that value human rights and environmental protection over corporate profits, and investment in infrastructure and reduction in military spending.

The “change we can believe in” will only be realized through a combination of legislative reform and social action.  We must pressure Congress to pass the right laws and we must pressure the Obama administration to enforce them fully.  As such, it is up to us to speak out on issues and to make sure that our voices get heard over the corporate shills who dominate the network and cable news channels.  Obama’s legacy will always be one of breaking the color barrier to the White House, but let’s make sure it is much more than that.  Let’s work together for a legacy of meaningful progressive change that we can all thrive in for generations to come!