PrintDiscuss
Features » December 28, 2009

Hope Is Not Change

Patience is not a virtue—and good things don’t come to those who wait.

By David Sirota

On Nov. 7, 2006, then-Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Jon Tester hops a fence as he works on his farm in Big Sandy, Montana. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Tags   

When you look honestly at what’s going on in our government right now, it’s not clear that “change” was anything more than a cynical campaign slogan on a colorful t-shirt.

People are right to be angry. While we have certainly seen some encouraging progressive policy successes, the average person is nonetheless looking at an economy with a real unemployment rate of 17 percent—the highest since the Great Depression. And if they hear news of politicians at all, they either see them taking 15 different positions on the most simple issues, or raising boatloads of cash from the same corporate fat cats who got the country into this mess.

We must realize that politics is serious, and at this time it behooves us to change our attitude and adjust our perspective.

Parties and politicians are means to an end—not an end unto themselves. Some Democratic partisans insist that efforts to pressure President Obama and congressional Democrats are disloyal or traitorous—as if the objective in American democracy is to preserve a politician’s power.

That, of course, isn’t the goal—the goal, as Barack Obama’s fellow community organizers know, is to turn people’s “hope” into real “change.”

If passing a serious Wall Street reform bill means embarrassing every member of Congress to the point where their approval ratings are in the toilet, then that’s what we have to do. If passing a universal healthcare bill means humiliating our senators into consistently strong stands, then that’s what we have to do. If passing the kinds of tax and spending policies that can get us out of the recession means constantly pressuring Barack Obama, then that’s what we have to do. And the good news is, the more all of these political leaders listen to this grassroots pressure, the better they will fare at the polls come election time. And should they not listen, perhaps it is time for them to face a primary challenge.

Some say contested Democratic primaries weaken the electoral chances of Democratic candidates in general elections. That’s untrue on many levels.

The last hotly contested Democratic U.S. Senate primary in the Mountain West occurred in 2006 in Montana. You’ll recall that the Democratic Party’s Big Money tried to force a guy named Jon Tester out of that primary race. Had Tester not run that race, Democrats would have coronated Tester’s opponent, State Auditor John Morrison—a candidate with a potentially devastating personal scandal in his closet who would have been crushed in the general election by the Republican incumbent, Sen. Conrad Burns. As Tester told the Senate Democratic Caucus when he arrived in Washington, primaries make candidates stronger.

But even more important than the candidate vetting value of primaries is the issue pressure that primaries create. Whereas Republican primaries tend to create competition between candidates seeking to show who is a more extremist conservative, Democratic primaries tend to create competition between candidates seeking to show who is more in touch with the concerns of most voters. In working to win the Democratic nomination, candidates have to show who is more committed to universal healthcare, Wall Street reform, environmental protection and ending adventurist wars—that is, to show who is more committed to issue positions that are popular among both the Democratic primary and general electorate.

Those who wring their hands about Democratic primary challengers—whether Big Money donors, organized interest groups, cynical political power brokers or the ever-present pundit consultants—and who have sought to stop primary challengers represent the same status quo that drove this country into a ditch. It is a status quo that sees democracy as a threat rather than a cure. And yet had we had more democracy—had we had a Congress that responded to the longtime public demand for healthcare reform, an end to the Iraq War and more serious corporate regulation—we wouldn’t be in the trouble we’re now in.

For those that urge caution, let’s be clear: patience is not a virtue—in fact, it’s the last refuge of the status quo and a rationale used by some of the most despicable forces in our past.

Those who look at the crises our states and country face and look at the legislative opportunity Democrats hold and nonetheless argue for “patience” are making the very same “don’t go too fast” argument made against every step forward we’ve ever taken. They are the Father Coughlins arguing against the New Deal, the Goldwaterites opposing Medicare, the tea party protestors angrily snarling at minorities and the uninsured.

Forty years from now, America won’t remember the vote counts on specific bills (does anyone remember the vote count to pass Medicare?) and they won’t remember the name of the legislators or the senator or the governors in office. They will remember that we didn’t use this fleeting window of political opportunity.

They’ll remember the results. And to get those results, we must know that this is not a game and patience is not a virtue. 

This article was adapted from the keynote speech to the Democratic Party of Denver’s annual Edward M. Kennedy Dinner on Nov. 7, 2009.

  • Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
  • Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!
  • Or win a subscription to In These Times by taking this short survey!
David Sirota is a senior editor at In These Times and author of the bestselling books The Uprising and Hostile Takeover. He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado and blogs at OpenLeft.com. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com.

More information about David Sirota
Tags   
  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    Whoa, over half the country is against everything you think should be shoved down the politicians throats.  Only about 30% of the country is looking for the change you talk about.  The change most of us were looking for is a new politics of honesty and integrity.  The change you are talking about is coercion by a radical minority.  Sounds like a sick society you propose.

    Posted by Dominic J. Melfi on Dec 28, 2009 at 11:28 AM

    Is this quote for real:

    “the tea party protestors angrily snarling at minorities and the uninsured.”

    What tea party protesters are you talking about? I saw good Americans protesting against the asinine policies coming out of Washington. It had nothing to do with “minorities and the uninsured”. Anyway, I thought dissent was the highest form of patriotism. I guess that’s only when the libs are out of power. You guys are total hypocrites. The public is not buying what you libs are trying to sell. It’s time you guys realize that,and stop trying to turn America into Europe.

    Posted by bellagrazi on Dec 28, 2009 at 1:26 PM

    The Democrats and Republicans all need replacing.  You must have overdosed on the Kool-Aid if you actually believe the drivel that passes for political discourse these days.

    Politicians are totally into covering each others butts, and only think about the public when they’re looking for votes.  The clear majority, including those of you who voted for Obama and those of you who didn’t don’t want this bill. 

    Amazing that the only people who do want it are politicians and fascists.  And before you get irate about using the word fascist, look it up.  Fascists advocate a single party system, and believe the public is incapable of governing itself or making decisions for itself.

    The politicians trade sides depending on who is in power, and complain about the same tactics they used last time.  Sounds like two wings of the same party.

    As for your snarling angry tea-baggers, you’re confusing us with SEIU.  We never beat up on anyone at a rally.  Too bad your union thugs can’t say the same thing.

    We fought a revolution 233 years ago because we were being treated like our own government treats us today.  This time it will be votes, not bullets, but the result will be the same.

    Posted by Jack Sotallaro on Dec 28, 2009 at 5:19 PM

    President Obama didn’t let us down—we let him down. I remember Obama stressing (during his campaign) that he “can’t do this alone.”  He has been very consistent about this—there can be no change unless we get out of our chairs, out the door and make it happen.  We’re still sitting, waiting for Obama to “do something.”  Change doesn’t just happen, folks.

    An occasional march in Washington, sponsored by organizations,  is nice enough, but think: Most of us can’t afford bus fare (much less plane fare) and housing for such events. We HAVE to do what was done in the past—find ways to do it with very little money. Pool our resources, load people into cars, pitch in what we can and bring in those who have passion and knowledge but no money

    Also, civil obedience isn’t working.  Change can’t be forced (and it will take force!) by purchasing permits, politely remaining in the (out-of-the-way)  designated protest zones—no signs! No microphones!  Don’t litter, and leave the area by 8 p.m.  Right.  Protest all you want, but be polite and obedient.  The media will ignore you, so the only one hearing your message is you.  While you’re doing this, try to think of a time in our history when the corporate and political powers EVER made any changes or concessions without being forced to do so.

    Posted by dhfabian on Dec 29, 2009 at 9:37 AM

    I along with millions of others voted for Obama after enduring 8 years of neo-fascism from Bush. We truly expected major changes in labor relations, accessibility to healthcare, cleaning up the environment, restoring our Constitution, holding Bush/Cheney accountable for their crimes, but alas we’ve seen nothing even remotely close to this.

    Yes, Obama cannot do it alone. Especially if he prefers to listen to the lobbyists from the corporatists who have destroyed this great nation!

    Right wingers and so-called liberals alike rant and rave about the “failure” of socialism, yet cannot show one good thing that capitalism has done for the majority of the U.S.!

    Redbaiting, collusion with corporate lobbyists, out and out betrayal of the people is all I have seen in this so-called Change!

    Posted by Frank (Pancho) Valdez on Dec 29, 2009 at 3:38 PM
  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 10 posts.

Appeared in the January 2010 Issue
Also by David Sirota
IN THESE TIMES COMMUNITY MEMBERS