The Weird, Wonderful Problem of Winning

Here at MADRE, we’re hopeful about what an Obama presidency could mean for those of us who care about women’s human rights around the world. At the same time, we know that there are inconsistencies and challenges that we will face. He’s great on choice; not so great on the death penalty. Committed to (partial) withdrawal from Iraq; but plans to escalate the war on Afghanistan. Understands that combating AIDS in Africa requires science, not Christian dogma; but wants to further militarize the continent through AFRICOM. I could go on, but you get the picture.  

So the question is—and we want your help answering it—how do we relate to an administration that is our ally on some issues, but not on others?

Historically, US progressives haven’t had to grapple much with this question, especially not during Bush’s reign. That question is now paramount. In fact, I think that the way we answer it may determine how effective we are in winning the policies we want to see from Washington. 

After all, we can’t continue to act as though the White House is the enemy of all things feminist and human-rights oriented just because they don’t support our whole agenda.  If we do that, we forfeit a tremendous chance to engage and push for real change. And we will disconnect ourselves from a groundswell of people who recognize that this is, in fact, a moment of opportunity for progressives.

We also don’t want to be cheerleaders for the new administration. David Axelrod and Barack Obama would love to see their 10 million-strong email list become a giant rubber stamp sitting on the President’s desk. That would be a big mistake.

Fortunately, our options aren’t limited to total rejection or unconditional support. I want to suggest here that we adopt an approach that MADRE is calling critical cooperation. That means vocally supporting every positive move that the administration makes and demanding improvements to any US policy that doesn’t uphold human rights. Our opposition, when it’s warranted, can be constructive. But let’s not back peddle on what we know is right just because there’s someone in the White House who may meet us part-way.

It’s a strange and wonderful problem to have: figuring out what to do when our candidate wins.  This idea of critical cooperation is MADRE’s working proposal.  I’m putting it forward on the blog today because I’m writing a piece explaining critical cooperation towards the new administration. I would love to hear what you think as I’m sitting down to write.

So what do you think? You can post your comments below.

Comments

[Diane]

This is something I've been thinking about a lot this week. After regaining my hard-earned cynicism toward any U.S. administration -- sentimental and thrilled as I remain about Obama's existence and victory -- I saw an interview with a worker sitting in at the Chicago window plant. It took place several days into the sit-in and the reporter asked the the man if Obama's statement of support had meant anything to him. He said that he heard the remarks over the weekend and decided "if the president's supporting us, I'm going, I've been in here since, and I'm staying."

When I heard that all I could think was, well I haven't either inspired or encouraged anyone to commit civil disobedience in the past week!

Obama may remain more of a community organizer than he realizes, or even intends, in ways I've been denying could be possible. In spite of my cynical cautions to my kids, who are first time voters, they have been insisting since Obama announced that this presidency would re-ignite radical activism among all sorts as people, especially young people, who are now hopeful of at least being heard.

We'll see...about the hearing and the response. Maybe workers will start sitting in all over the country. Maybe enough people will take to the streets to keep Afghans and Pakistanis safe, or make the next administration stop using the expression "war on terror" really meaning "war on the world if we feel like it." OK, maybe not, but still, how ABOUT a president who says he supports a CD action on national TV? I liked that and it makes me believe its at least worth trying to press our agenda with this administration.

Thank you for offering the forum.

[L Cortes]

Dear Friends:

One way we can play a role is by actively participating in the local meetings that are taking place around the nation. We will bring a different voice to those meetings. Here in Florida this weekend there are meetings ("We are the change") happening all over town. It will be the first of many to come and I strongly believe that our active participation can help shape the message that will be sent to WA. So, rather that sitting in the sidelines waiting for the Obama-Biden administration to make a mistake and then be critical I propose that we try to play role starting now, that is, utilizing the "venue" that the new administration is proposing.

Let change begin!!

[Yifat Susskind]

Diane,

Yes, as we’re cheering the election of the country’s first African American president, we should also be celebrating the election of the first community organizer president. You’re right that Obama’s identification with organizing is what led him to publicly support the Chicago workers’ sit-in.

Let’s not forget, too, that the workers were essentially demanding adherence to Obama’s play-book for the Wall Street bailout. In fact, the workers, the factory owners and the president-elect all wanted the same thing here: that Bank of America use its bail-out money to re-extend credit to business. (In this case, so the business could pay severance to workers it is firing as it relocates its plant and hires a new, non-union workforce).

Still, you can’t imagine anyone named Bush coming out in favor of a factory sit-in, so this is a victory. A good way to build on it would be to push President Obama to pass the Employee Free Choice Act come January.

[Yifat Susskind]

Thanks, L. Cortes for your comment. If you know how people can find local initiatives like the one you’re involved with, please let us know.

[Diane]

I would love to know more about those meetings as well. Great idea.

[Bernard Zirnheld]

In reading your initial post, I find myself wondering a bit more about where your concern is coming from. Are you trying to build a strategy to impact the Obama administration in its particularity or are you trying to find a way to critically engage the new administration in a manner that will not alienate its supporters?

In terms of the first question, I think it's important to think of the Obama administration just like any other. It will do awful things and less awful things; and probably even some good things. Do you think there is a specific condition – like a broad and largely uncritical popular mandate —that sets this administration apart from previous ones and potentially insulates it from critique?

From my perspective, Obama and his advisors seem very skillful at affecting superficial change; seizing moments that allow us to "believe" in fundamental change while leaving intact large parts of the status quo. It seems that in engaging this administration -- or movement, as the president-elect would have it -- it will be useful to establish a set of core values; some criterion by which we might insist on consistency and by which we might evaluate position. Maybe this is a naive expectation in politics and in political action but if change is the clarion call of this administration, let's work with it to create a fundamental definition against which its actions will be judged.

For me, this begs the question of historical consciousness. If "change" is the order of the day, what is the status quo? Can we name it? Can we identify its history? To my mind, the desire for progressive 'change' entails being able to articulate the legacy of Reagan and the Clintonian centrism that finished Reagan's work. I think this is important to build into conversations with Obama supporters. The younger among them largely don't know this history and therefore their notion of 'change' is very much caught up in the present and in contestation of the Bush administration.

It seems useful in conversation among ourselves – in these Meetings for Change, for example -- to broaden and to specify our understanding of change so that it doesn't live in an eternal present; so that the status quo is seen as something that was created through forty years of decisions and policy priorities that need to be re-thought. Let's keep asking ourselves and others what are the core values of this movement for change. When are they compromised? When are they advanced? What kind of partial change -- for Obama, we all know, is only going to be affecting partial change -- are acceptable?

This post is probably overstating the obvious or too abstract but I feel like the 'new politics' we're experiencing runs the risk of amnesia and therefore more of the same.

[Yifat]

Bernard,

I agree that we need to define the changes we want to see and develop criteria by which to evaluate the new administration. I think a good place to start is with our long-term vision for the world.

When we focus on our vision, we gain clarity not only about what we’re against, but more importantly, what we’re for (i.e., the changes we want to see). Then we can begin to outline what steps are needed to move us in the right direction (what you call criteria).

MADRE’s vision is for a world in which all people enjoy the fullest range of individual and collective human rights; in which resources are shared equitably and sustainably; in which women participate effectively in all aspects of society; and in which people have a meaningful say in decisions that affect their lives.

[Diane Clancy]

I think you are right on track. Obama definitely agrees on a lot of good issues and shouldn't be dismissed. At the same time there are issues ... like gay marriage - where his thinking is not in line with many of us.

But I think we do what we need to do in many relationships - advocate for our viewpoint but not dismiss the person who disagrees ... instead work on finding common ground and building on it.

~ Diane Clancy
www.DianeClancy.com/blog
www.DianeClancy.etsy.com

[Samira]

I find this post offensive.
Barack Obama, despite MADRE saying so, has not demonstrated that he cares "about women's human rights" in the US or around the world. He has trivialized women who have abortions with his "feeling blue" remarks.
I expect this hope b.s. from MoveOn and The Nation but I expect MADRE to stand up.
Instead I get junk like this: "He’s great on choice; not so great on the death penalty. Committed to (partial) withdrawal from Iraq; but plans to escalate the war on Afghanistan."
The construction of those two sentences implies that Barack's 'withdrawal' from Iraq is a good thing. There is no damn withdrawl under Barak which is why he refused in the debate (as did Hillary, as did Edwards) to promise that, if elected, he would have all US troops out of Iraq by the end of his first term.
I am sick of this nonsense.
Iraqis are dying. And MADRE wants to play cheerleader for Barack?
And on comments. MADRE is a global organization. So could US only citizens not show their racism so proudly? Barack is not Black. He is bi-racial and though the US works real hard to ignore its bi-racial and multi-racial citizens, around the world we're fully aware that every person does not have to belong to a single race.
Barack's continued silence on the slaughter of Palestinians says it all.

[Diane]

Hi Samira. I think you are being a little hard on Yifat. She specifically says that MADRE should NOT be a cheerleader for Obama. The Nation's coverage has been nauseating, but I find no similarity here. This post is about one possible strategy for making use of the next administration, no where is there even an implication of blanket support. I find it extremely condescending for you to suggest that anyone at MADRE plans to stop "standing up." They haven't shown any sign of doing so before, and they haven't suddenly become naive about who's dying or what constitutes women's human rights.

Until the world is the way I want it to be I know that not every alliance I make in order to get changes made along the way will be perfect. We all pick and choose. To me it seems that the discussion here is about how to cautiously ally with this administration -- if that will help press it to keep any of the campaign promises that we want to see implemented.

On a more personal note, I found your post to be offensive. Whether or not the rest of the world is "fully aware that every person does not have to belong to a single race," the fact that this nuanced approach is not taken by those in the United States, who brutalize and oppress people based on the color of their skin, is EXACTLY what makes Barack Obama black in America. Maybe he will be treated as "mixed-race" when he travels to the rest of the world, and its questionable whether or not this will be a benefit. But as long as his skin color means that he will be stopped and frisked for "driving while black," for example, even in the most liberal parts of the United States, Obama will be black in this country.

It doesn't mean I have to agree with a single word he says or support a single thing he does, but that won't diminish what it means to so many of us that a black man was elected president -- the thoughts over a history of pain and violence, the shock that the number of votes had to come from at least some people who still inflict that, or our appreciation of this in itself as a poignant victory.

[Mark E. Smith]

I wish I could share the hopes that some have expressed. Obama and McCain have virtually identical voting records. The military-industrial complex donated more to the Obama campaign than to the McCain campaign. So it looks to me like the military-industrial complex won, they got their candidate, and the genocides will continue.

In basic first aid, first you try to staunch the bleeding. Helping people AFTER we've bombed them, overthrown their governments, assassinated their leaders, and destroyed their economy is, at least in my mind, like applying a bandaid instead of a tourniquet. If we could stop causing the harm, it would be a lot easier to help.

The public outcry against the bailout was of historic proportions. 90% of Americans opposed it. You won't get anywhere near 90% agreement on withdrawing from Iraq, ensuring gay rights, or any other controversial subject. If somebody can ignore 90% disapproval, I don't see much chance that they'd respond to even 70% or 80% if we could get that much agreement on other things.

The problems in the U.S. are systemic. Our Constitution does not allow us to directly elect or impeach a President or Vice-President, and does not let us directly remove a Member of Congress from office. We have no way to hold our rulers accountable, so they should not be called representatives. They may choose to allow public comments, but their actions are determined by the wealthy elite and the big multinational corporations. We can beg and plead, but we cannot threaten. Once the damage is done and cannot be undone, we will again be given a choice between two evils, a puppet show with a grotesque greater evil deliberately nominated to make the other evil appear to be lesser. But we don't have a direct participatory democracy. When it comes to war, we don't have a vote. All I see is genocide as usual, and whether it is done viciously and vindictively, or reluctantly and with feigned regret, it is still genocide. The victims cannot see any difference at all.