Is the task of progressives to mindlessly worship those in power? Or is it to consistently organize around issues, pressuring those with the capacity to make change to inch closer toward a more just, equitable society?
Eric Schmidt’s article in yesterday’s Herald (“Polls, not parades place for progress”) at least gets one thing right about our current political moment: Obama “never promised” to be a candidate of change, except in his use of rhetoric. He correctly notes that Saturday’s “Hold Change Accountable” rally had very little to, well, hold accountable. Obama’s widely-publicized platform never offered much to the immigrant, indebted student, labor unionist or any other progressive constituency, even if his ideas are a marked improvement from what we have had for the last eight years.
The Obama candidacy has been a prime lesson in American politics and power relations in the 21st century, and it is here that Schmidt’s analysis proves contradictory. He implies that he would like to see a reversal of the militaristic and neoliberal paradigm as much as anyone in Saturday’s rally, but that working through “the system they hate” is the only way to achieve any sort of result.
And yet, Obama the politician crisply shows the failures of an exclusively electoral approach to political change. It is undeniable that Obama, prior to the quick maturation of his political career, was always a friend of and well-educated about all the right causes. He befriended Rashid Khalidi and Edward Said, read Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn and organized the most destitute in our society in the poor communities of South Chicago. How, then, are we to explain his support for Israel’s most recent massacre of Palestinians in Gaza, hard-line approach to dealing with Cuba, Iran and Afghanistan and almost complete disregard for the poor during his campaign?
It should be obvious that the two-party system isn’t designed to produce candidates genuinely allied with the oppressed. Drenched with corporate money and held hostage by a corporate media, Obama could never have been elected through such an undemocratic process had he remained true to the values he undoubtedly still holds. This also explains the near impossibility of electing a progressive third-party candidate on a national level, a solution Schmidt seems to think a good one despite the fact that it hasn’t worked since 1860.
The truth is that the protesters on Saturday — comprised of a uniquely diverse group of progressive students — combined a practical engagement with the political system in its current form while still acknowledging that true change will only come with a sustainable grassroots movement. Concretely, this meant both a celebration of the defeat of the Republican-era extremism and realization that the job of progressives has only just begun.
Obviously, Saturday’s rally was not meant to be attached to immediate, tangible goals. It was a way of unifying and building the increasingly energized and enthusiastic left on campus. Contrary to Schmidt’s claim, campus radicals have no interest in staging meaningless protests or endlessly marching down
Yes, the campus left is interested in broad notions of human equality and fraternity. But in moving toward these ideals, the tasks are all definable and achievable. The Campus Antiwar Network, devoted to ending the illegal invasions of
All these campaigns are, contrary to Schmidt, “engagements with the system,” even if some of the tactics used — marches, sit-ins, teach-ins, among others — implicitly acknowledge that exclusively working through the system will get you very little. With this confusion cleared up, I would invite Schmidt, a self-identified “democratic socialist,” to engage with the campus left and help it move forward in this new and exciting political era. To echo his own words, “Anything less will be mere white noise.”
Kyle Szarzynski ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in history and Spanish.
