Massachusetts teaches us a lesson "we" shouldn't have had to learn this way

Many Democrats are stunned that "we" lost Massachusetts.

We shouldn't be.

"We" were complacent.

"We" were arrogant.

"We" learned the wrong lessons from Obama's victory just over a year ago.

"We" thought America voted for Obama. Nope.

"We" thought America wanted change. Not so much. (America wanted a change -- just not social change.)

"We" thought Obama's victory represented a new chapter in race relations. Nah.

"We" confused the throngs of new voters and small donors that the Obama campaign reached out for a real social movement. Not hardly.

"We" thought that the marginalized and irregular voters who came out for the first time (or in a very long time) got religion. Not really.

"We" thought that it was finally "our" time. Not yet.

So, who exactly is this "we"? Well, whomever "we" is, we will need to change how we define "we" and what "we" are truly about. Because if ever there was a time to get the message, it is now.

With (at least) three years of almost certain Beltway gridlock, the time is now (but should've been yesterday) to reclaim our communities and the power in them and between them that too many of "us" have overlooked for the presidential panacea that never was.

This is the lesson we should've learned from Dr. King's short time on this earth. And we should've ingrained this lesson into the hearts and minds of each successive generation -- on every MLK Day and every day in between. The power resides in the people, not the political parties that neither reflect nor direct us.

If "we" truly believe in the change that Obama stood for as validated by his humble beginnings as a community organizer, than "we" need to go back to the source of that power and support and join the community organizers who never left their communities or dared to think that even a president with community organizing credentials could be a proxy for the grassroots work at the heart of what makes America truly great.

Can "we" do it in the wake of this filibuster-ending defeat?

"Yes, we can!" Or perhaps, more emphatically: "Yes, we damn well better!"

Comments

[Ty dePass]

"we" need to stop referring to BO's "humble beginnings as a community organizer."the fact is, he was little more than a glorified (and over paid) outreach worker -- one who mobilizes a specific "target population" considered "eligible" to participate in a specific program or receive a specific service. outreach workers are all about re/distribution, and their jobs last only so long as there is support for that particular program/service. their orientation tends to be pragmatic, short term, and immediate.
on the other hand, organizers are concerned w/ transformation: of individuals, the social systems they are part of, and the social conditions they endure. and while organizers are also concerned w/ matters of resource distribution, their focus is on the long haul, protracted struggle against traditional arrangements of power, wealth, and status.
as i said from the outset, BO was never a community organizer. and i've always suspected that his brief (check it out for yourself) tenure in a grassroots organization was merely to burnish his resume.
mrvr, his uncritical adoption of the DLC's neo-liberal (Third Way) tenet that public policy is best executed by the private (often for-profit) sector betrays his insider's orientation. Third Way advocates are into "tweeking" market forces to produce nominally better public outcomes; grassroots are reduced passive and malleable consumers, denied any meaningful role as primary agents for fundamental change.