I was living in Boston in the fall of 1992 When Bill Clinton was running for president against the first George Bush. In the final days before the election, he made a campaign sweep through the country that included Boston’s Faneuil Hall, only a few blocks from where I lived. Eager to see him and familiar with the neighborhoods that surround Faneuil Hall, I jockeyed my way in and out of businesses and bars, and around tourists and police officers until finally I was directly behind the cordoned off area just to the left of the stage where Clinton was speaking.
Boston has traditionally been a Democratic stronghold and the crowd that day was huge. Before Clinton even made it to the microphone, people were screaming. He didn’t let them down. Charisma personified, Clinton was a presence simply by showing up. When he started speaking the energy became electric. And beyond what he was saying, it was just fun to be part of the spectacle: It was a beautiful autumn New England day. Clinton was the star, the Secret Service and local politicians were minor players, and it was all wrapped up in red-white-and-blue bunting, patriotic songs, and some decent classic rock. All the men in the crowd wanted to be Clinton. All the women—and some of the men—just plain wanted him.
Beyond Clinton’s personal appeal, I also loved the democratic nature of the whole scene: people gathering of their own accord to see who they were—or were not—voting for. Multiple ages, races and socio-economic groups were represented. Clinton looked crisp and fresh in a blue suit and tie. His stature and the Secret Service protection made his separation from us apparent, but when he raised his hands over his head, revealing a beaten-up sports-watch that any of us could have bought at our local drugstore, we knew for just a minute that he could really be one of us. When he won the election a few days later, I am sure no one in the crowd was surprised.
I remembered this scene a few weeks ago when, when in the days before we left the midwest, my husband talked me into spending a rare day off driving to Kansas City to see Barack Obama speak. My spouse had been interested in Obama since the senator’s speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, and had followed his career and read his books. It was a natural that my husband wanted to hear him speak.
As we approached Kansas City and the Marriott hotel where the rally was held, there was much that felt familiar: traffic started to get tight and after we parked, we joined a long stream of people snaking our way down a couple of blocks, into the hotel, and then waiting in line until we could enter the ballroom where Obama would be speaking. People were excited, wearing campaign paraphernalia and talking about the candidate. It was a diverse crowd, too. Parents of multiple different races had dressed up their kids and brought them to see the senator; elderly groups from nursing homes had taken buses to the hotel; and behind my husband and me in line stood two lily-white college kids who were proud to tell us they were the only Democrats in their fraternity.
But when Obama finally spoke, it was an experience somewhat different from seeing Clinton. Although he was speaking to a crowd of supporters, Obama didn’t capture the crowd immediately, and at first this annoyed me: I wanted to be wowed. It also bothered me that he was not wearing a tie. But the longer he talked, the more I realized that his magic was not in being the walking-charisma that I had seen personified in Clinton, but rather, in being a remarkable—and smart—storyteller. Obama started slow, and for a while, I was not sure where he was going. He touched on key points, like the need for better health-care and the problems with the war in Iraq—each issue illustrated with stories and supported by a wealth of statistics. But although the crowd politely clapped, the speech didn’t move us for a good long while.
About 20 minutes into things, though, something shifted and the crowd began to enthusiastically respond. Obama had started talking about “politics of hope” and all of a sudden the stories and statistics he had been piling up began to make a lot of sense. I realized that rather than just handing out sound bites hooked together with personal charisma, the senator had made an appeal to my intellect. He had spent the first part of his speech laying down the facts as he saw them and was now using those facts to draw conclusions that were the underpinnings of his campaign. Whether you agreed with these conclusions or not, you had to respect where he was coming from and the logic he had used to reach those conclusions. This man was a thinking politician, and in a crowded Marriott ballroom, almost in spite of myself, I had been invited to think along with him.
The crowd began cheering wildly, and by the time Obama started telling stories about Civil Rights protest marches in the 1960s—and connecting them to the foundation he had laid with his earlier discussion of current issues—the crowd went completely nuts. I joined in. Far from pushing easy emotional buttons with these stories, he had earned the right to tell them—and earned the applause, too. In the hotel lobby after he left, I bought a button that said “Audacious Hopealicious.”
Three weeks and one move across the country later, I attended a fund-raiser for a good friend who is running for city council in the town where I now live. Stripped of the money and trappings of a national campaign, my friend’s fund-raiser was nevertheless full of local color: a local club hosted the event and provided appetizers. A neighborhood bicycle shop donated a bike that was raffled off, and works by a local artist were for sale with all proceeds going to the campaign. The candidate’s wife came in and bought everyone a round of drinks. The campaign manager, a friendly guy who had managed other city campaigns, greeted everyone at the door and counted money at the end of the night. And the candidate listened. He spoke his views about issues facing the city, but he also wanted to hear what other people had to say.
While the national campaign events outdid my friend’s fund-raiser in terms of spectacle and scale, the attention to local issues and availability of the candidate beat those big campaigns hands down. There was not really an opportunity for big speeches, but the hand shaking and greetings were genuine. At the end of the night I gave the candidate a hug and wished him luck. In more ways than one, I wanted him to win.
Throughout medical school and residency, I became more and more troubled by the state of world affairs. As our country went to—and then persisted in—war, I got more and more sucked into medical training with nary an iota of energy left to consider how to made a dent in the issues that kept me up at night. Now that residency is over and I will soon start a much less time consuming job, I find myself wondering what kind of contribution I want to make. And I wonder if it is even possible to do damage to forms of badness as troubling as unjust war.
Maybe this is why I find myself thinking about Clinton and Obama and my favorite local candidate. Not because I necessarily feel called to politics, but because I am inspired by people who have the courage to answer their own calls. In a world where it sometimes seems impossible to make a difference, I am moved by people who still believe in the power of an individual to effect change. Watching the direction these people take their lives motivates me to find directions and issues of my own—and pricks my conscience about supporting issues that make sense to me in the meantime.
I considered this all as I drank my Diet Coke at the fund-raiser the other night. Then I said goodbye to friends and other people I had just met, got out my wallet and wrote the future city councilman a check.
“In a world where it sometimes seems impossible to make a difference, I am moved by people who have not given in to cynicism and still believe in the power of an individual to effect change.”
This is a nice sentiment, and articulated incredibly well (as is the entire post), but at the risk of being too cynical (as if), I wonder how much power most or any individuals really have. What I mean is: the examples you give are all seeking the support of constituencies; they are not seeking to act as individuals. Yes, once someone is elected to a post, they have extraordinary powers, and are still individuals, but even they must (usually) re-earn the support of a body of individuals, be it the rest of the town counsel, their local constituents, the rest of the Senate, or the other Justices.
I’m not saying that as individuals we shouldn’t do our best to be good, moral, and active (in whatever way these things mean to us); I am just a little weary of the iconic myth of “individual power.” My Marxist side cringes at the idea, and feels that it was created as a tool by capitalists to prevent group action. After all, the reasoning goes, why should one join a union or a revolution, if these things may impinge on the desires of every “individual” involved?
And that seems to be the irony of your story. The scenes you describe seem quite powerful, but that power lies in the groups’ responses, not in the individuals who are in front of the groups.
Does any of this make sense, or am I just popping off? Anyway, I very much enjoyed your post.
So much brilliance in this post, but this is one of my favorite lines: “This man was a thinking politician, and in a crowded Marriott ballroom, almost in spite of myself, I had been invited to think along with him.” The idea that a thoughtful politican is a novelty is both amusing and pretty sad. But true.
I wonder if the differing reactions to Cilnton and Obama that you decribe are due to more than just the two men’s approaches to public speaking. I think in 1992 most American people in general were more receptive to the hope and charisma that Clinton embodied, whereas now people are a little more weary and a little (or a lot) more pessimistic, since our capacity for hope has been exploited and devestated by the seductive sway of charismatic politicians. I think a lot of Americans need some time to warm up to the idea of a presidential candidate to cheer for; perhaps Scott can come up with some catchy Obama cheer to get the crowd going.
Great post, Annie. You’re quite a storyteller yourself.
I really enjoyed this post.
It looks like Obama is really the only chance the Democrats have to avert a Clinton nomination. Edwards isn’t raising enough money and hasn’t been able to get rid of the stupid hair story. Gore’s not going to enter the race — and if he did, I don’t think his performance in 2000 should give us much confidence in his abilities as a general-election candidate. My beef with Clinton: she’s the furthest to the right of the Democratic candidates, but most of the country sees her as furthest to the left. Her negatives are through the roof, but it’s not like she’s a genuinely progressive candidate who would be worth fighting for given those negatives.
I think it’s worth everyone considering a donation to the Obama campaign, however small. He’s received donations from more individuals than any of the other candidates, giving him a real claim to grassroots support. There’s something genuinely exciting about his candidacy. I think an Obama presidency could change the country in ways that go beyond any specific policies he might enact, similar to JFK.
Great post and Scotty I totaly agree with you.
Interesting on the similairities/differences in the Clinton/Obama speeches. I fear the soundbite era we live in keeps people from listening that 20 minutes. Hope Obama can come up with some killer soundbites!!
Great post.
If Barack Obama is to successfully challenge Hillary Clinton, he must move from story-telling to clearly outlining policies and how he would execute them.
re: 6: I wonder why this is such a popular talking point in the conventional wisdom about Obama. The issues section of his website lists more policies, plans, and positions than I personally care to read, on everything from bird flu to the Iraq War. Furthermore, it’s somewhat bizarre to suggest that American voters pick candidates based on clearly outlined policies and execution strategies. This isn’t true of any presidential election I can think of, and it’s not true of this election. I’ve never met anyone who says they support Clinton or Giuliani or Richardson because of their prodigious list of clearly defined policies and how they would execute them.
Marley loves the term “Hopealicious”. And although I will be supportive if Hillary wins the nomination, I’m pulling for Obama. I’ve compared the voting records of Obama and Hillary, and they are very similar.
In response to Scotty’s skepticism: I’ve often thought about the issue of re-election politics, and, if-and-when I run for a local office, I probably will only be elected for one term. Because, to gain re-election, one often has to play the politics of re-election which often run contrary to serving in a capacity that is best for the elected position. I would do what’s best for the position during the time in which I am serving, and would likely not win again. But what if Barrack only wins one term? What if all he did was get us out of Iraq, and lead us to a nationalized health care system? It would define success in my book.
Besides, he likes Marley, and what’s better than that?
Kudos Annie Walker…
MF: I was speaking more about the power and importance of group action than I was about re-election politics. My point is that even maverick politicians need a coalition to get most things done; this is just how most politics works. If I’m not mistaken, this is why the root word of politics is polis or city.
Yes, and while the individual needs the power of the group, the group needs the power of the indiviudal.
MF: I agree with you; by definition a group is composed of individuals, but there is also a concept that Rosa Luxemburg discussed and that V. Lenin coined as the spontaneity of the masses, which I find quite compelling. In this model, a group doesn’t have to rely on one person to incite them or compel them to act, they can simply become fed-up with a circumstance and spontaneously act together to change it.
Durring the Cold War, however, American social scientists developed Behavioralism, as a way of refuting the nature of collective action; they argued that individuals only act primarily and purely in self-interest.
The interesting thing to me about all of this is that one can clearly see the battle between communism (which relies on group action) on the one hand and capitalism (which relies on individualism) on the other.
Ah, the world was such a simpler place burring those glorious days of bi-polarity.
Thanks for such interesting responses. I wrote the post a couple of days ago on a plane. When I posted it, last night, and read Scott’s post, I thought they might form an interesting dialogue.
Scott–I really appreciate your vigorous and thoughtful response. My own beliefs are probably something along the lines of the Margaret Mead quote “Never doubt that a small group of committed individuals can change the world…” You rightly draw attention to the “group” aspect of what Mead is discussing and that was also present in my post. Still, the idea of individuals with clear visions who get those groups started holds something for me, too (I am thinking right now of Lech Walesa and a conversation I had over the weekend with my nephews about labor unions and the role they played in changing governments in Eastern Europe). I am equally troubled when the leader and group go wrong. And I think my real question right now is about personal responsibility: as a thinking person, what am I responsible to do when I see things going wrong, or when I simply want change? Thanks to cinthia and Marleyfan for fleshing out this conversation.
Miller–I think you’re onto something about crowds being pessimistic because our hope has been exploited. Perhaps, if anything good has come from the Bush administration it may be that the American people aren’t such a cheap date. In this way, some skepticism about what we’re hearing from politicians may be a very healthy thing.
Dave, Sheldon, Mike N– Although I didn’t mean this post to be an out-right endorsement of Obama, I think he is definitely worth paying attention to–and I feel even more strongly about this after having made the trip to hear him speak. He just may be doing the (mostly) the right things for (mostly) the right reasons. I would be happy to see his campaign continue to pick up speed.
Richard Hugo–if you’re out there, and if you’re another fine (but much younger) poet from the northwest: the local politician I write about was once your upstairs and my downstairs neighbor.
I always find it hard to respond to comments on my own posts. I’d much rather respond to someone elses. Nevertheless, one of the things that I have really appreciated about TGW is the chance to see how other thinking people are making sense of the complicated world we live in. Thanks for furthering my thinking about this stuff, today.
AW: between your post and this last comment, I’m feeling just a little crushy.
Annie, a lovely post as always. It reminded me of seeing Al Gore and Hillary Clinton speak in the late ’90s. The Hillary event was at my high school and I remember it as not very exciting. The Gore event was at the local university and was thrilling. At the time, Gore had a reputation for being a stiff so his humor was a welcome surprise. It would be interesting to see Hillary today in a different context.
In response to #1 are you saying that you don’t think individuals have power or just that groups have more power? I’m sure it all depends on the circumstance, but individuals are just as capable of creating change as a group. For example, a whistleblower is a lone individual standing up for the righteous, usually against a group of powerful people. Groups can do as much bad as they can good and it’s much more difficult for a person to stand alone.
BW: my position is not that individuals are powerless or that there aren’t times that lone actors can’t create real change (think of assassins). I am suggesting that the myth that we all have equal power to change the world is just that, a myth. It is a pleasant one – not unlike the fondness our society has of telling our children that they can be anything they want when they grow up.
These are powerful ideas, but they, in many ways, impede group organization, which is a much more powerful tool for change. I give you the question that has been placed in our heads when it is suggested that we change our actions for the betterment of the group: “what’s in it for me?”
Do you understand that humans are, by nature, social creatures, and that (unnatural) collective selfishness is what leads to things like global warming (why shouldn’t I drive an SUV when everyone else does), water shortages (why shouldn’t I water my lawn every day and make it look nice and green), and vast wealth disparity (why shouldn’t I make as much as I can without regard for the social consequences?).
The point that I’m trying to make isn’t that we are not all worthy people; it is that we’re not as individually special as we like to think we are. We affect others through our actions, and perhaps we should take some responsibility for this.
We are not meant to be a bunch of electrons bouncing off of each other. We are all part of a larger community. I understand that the idea of individual worth is deeply embedded in all of us, and it’s a little weird and scary to question it. And shit, I may be completely wrong about all of this mumbo jumbo anyway.
As for your example of a whistle-blower: yes, it is courageous to stand up against the machine (whatever it is) and put yourself on the line. However, this lone actor needs the power of a larger body for their “righteous” act to have any teeth. In other words, why would they blow their whistle if not to get the attention of others?
And of course groups can do all sorts of horrific things, but my point was never that when more than three people get together there’s always a positive outcome.
Hey Scotty- First I have to say that record club last night was AWESOME!!! I love getting to meet everyone in person and dancing until 2 am.
I was hooked on your response until the third paragraph: “Do you understand..?” That sounds like you’re questioning my intellectual capabilities. We hadn’t really met when you wrote it so it’s ok.
We did hash this out last night but you wanted a response. (For those of you who weren’t there, I had just arrived, purse in hand, no drink, when Scotty says with slightly narrowed eyes, “So Beth W did you read my response?” And it was on.) Basically, I agree with you that the group is more powerful than the individual. And we agreed that there are extraordinary individuals who can inspire change in the group (right, we agreed on that?).
I was about to disagree with you on something in your response but I had misunderstood and I think I’m jumping on your bandwagon. More people need to be inspired to participate in the group to enact change. So often people say, I’m just one person I feel powerless. But people aren’t often participating (myself included). People need to believe that small actions for the greater goal are important and worthwhile, such as donating money to a political campaign like Annie.
I’m reminded of the charity works of organized religion. For better or worse, they realize the importance of working together and actually do it. Perhaps it’s faith in a higher being that instills the idea that they are part of the group.
Much love to all! Beth W