« The Life of Passion | Main | Can You Say Hypocrites? »
Are We Ready for a Parent or a Partner?
I had an interesting conversation with Casey the other week. Participating in the blogosphere the last three years opened my eyes to the idea that participatory democracy is an idea whose time has come.
Look at our hard work during the heartbreaking KE-04 campaign in 2003-2004. Witness the birth of DCP, and participating on the blogs from KOS to Firedoglake, Culture Kitchen and beyond. Witness the triumph of the 2006 elections as well as the frustration which we voice vehemently on a daily basis. Look at the media focus on Yearly KOS 2 with all the democratic contenders in one room—ready to employ us.
We worked hard to create something out of our rage and desire to change. And for me, it has produced an evolution in my way of thinking about what we want in our leaders. It led me to ask Casey—for so long we’ve been looking for a leader, a hero, a father, even, to be our President. Are we ready to relinquish the President’s role as father/mother/leader and go instead for partner?
Perhaps seven years of George W. Bush as “Benevolent Father” has forced me to understand that neither was the case. That that role has largely become meaningless as a brand because of the agendas, lobbies and corporate interests that continue to bind him to the course that we’ve been on to our detriment. And yet a majority of people bought him and it in 2004.
Given what we’ve accomplished in the netroots and the growing majority of sentiment against the war, the bi-partisan cry for decent healthcare for children, the cross-party line concern over the state of our environmental and economic health, are we ready to try something else?
We in the netroots have worked thus far to raise money, winnow and refine the field of who is running for us. We organized and helped our candidates WIN in 2006. Now, maybe I’m wrong, but can’t we do better by having candidates that work WITH us, speak TO us, LISTEN to us and come up with what we all need? Isn’t that a natural evolution of where we’ve all worked so hard to be? Isn’t that why we so crave candidates who are message out AND in? Will our candidates be ready to give up listening to DC consultants at least half of the time and start blogging and communicating directly with us to find out what we really want?
That’s the least I would want in a partner.
I’ve already been grown and raised by my own parents. I have been led by father figures, mostly. This has led me down that cynical road of not believing in our leadership. Frankly, I don’t know if I’ve been listened to or not. And honestly, I get more from watching Jon Stewart than Katie Couric. (Stewart is honest.) I believe our people are wise enough now to know what we need and want. Our country and our world is headed down a path where once again, the stakes are, I believe, as high as they have been since the height of the Cold War. Our planet’s survival is at stake.
When JFK said ” Ask not what your country can do for you…” I thought even as a child, that it meant a clarion call for us to rise up and work for a better country, a better world. He was our father-figure then. But is a JFK-type leader/father-figure we need now?
Given everything we’ve been through up to now, is a Father/Mother leader or a Partner Leader the way to go? Neither is right or wrong. I’m asking our DCP community to examine between the two: WHAT BETWEEN THESE TWO MODELS FEELS RIGHT?
If we want a Parent as leader—what kind of parent would we want him/her to be? And if we want a Partner as a leader, what would it take for us to get there?
16 Comments
Leave a comment
Not registered? Click on 'Sign-in' above and then select 'Sign up' in the lower right corner. Don't forget to click on the link in the confirmation email that will be sent to your email address.
I take my own insight into this question from Contact Improvisation: A dance form that asks all participants to take responsibility for one's self and for the partner, and for the partnership.
Too often politicians see voters as recipients, rather than generators of policies. And too often voters see politicians as grocers, providing that which we need to purchase, rather than as governors.
If democracy is to work, like participatory dance forms, everyone has to show up, warm up, generate material, listen and observe, and support and give way as needed.
In Contact, I offer myself to others as a frame or as a partner; never a victim. When I go into Congress, I am a supplicant or an annoyance.
Can the culture change? We shall see...
Karen:
Per the contact improvisation metaphor, in order to partner well, you need to be aware and capable enought to work with the intent of the other person. Leading and following.
It still all boils down to information and what level of reality the public is willing to consume.
Does the media let us have full access to all the information needed to make an informed decision as to who will lead us? Of course not. Everyone wants a piece of the action, as evidenced by the last seven years.
Maybe the Founding Fathers had only a portion of it right. There are rules and principles drafted to govern the masses who don't care much about who is leading them or where they are leading them to. To govern too much would be a monarchy. Too little an anarchy.
We're treading dangerously past the republic and into a monarchy. Are people aware of how close we are to that--even with the next election? Do they care?
Sorry to pick on your choice of words but they are not ready to 'employ' us so much as they're ready to utilize us, use us, and then drop us when the people with the money and the power step up.
Regarding the monopoly--well, what is Bush I, Clinton, Bush two, then the possibility of Clinton again. Looks more and more like we're ruled by a few.
Suz:
Technically you're right about "employ". Its really more "deploy". The use. Then engage in selective amnesia.
I for one side with Mos Def when he talked about the Bushes and the Clintons and the White House. He said "They're passing the Presidency back and forth like a party bong!"
I find it fascinating that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are both, in their own ways, sort of subscribing to this exact change in thinking, as far as their campaigns are concerned. At least they'd like us to think so. I have more or less faith in the genuineness of their efforts, depending on which one it is!
Hillary offers the opportunity to sit down with her and Bill to discuss things for an evening, to some lucky donor.
John offers the opportunity for 5 donors to work side by side with him in rebuilding efforts in New Orleans.
For me, the latter is more appealing. I'd rather be physically doing something to make a difference. And I think I'd feel like we were working together toward a common purpose. Partners, as it were.
I'm not sure I could take the level of charisma in the Clinton's living room!
I'd like a competent President again. If they need me to call them Mommy or Daddy, hey, whatever it takes.
Just quit fu**ing up my country.
I find that our "democracy" - especially at the presidential level - has been overwhelmed with big money/special interest politics and Big Media/ Mass Entertainment.
The president campaign is not a discussion of ideas or issues or problems;
it is a grand spectacle/ beauty pageant
Who's winning? who's losing? Who's raised a lot of money? Who is broke and about to drop out?
It is simply unbelievable to me that the most hawkish Dem (Hillary) is leading, when most of the country is repulsed by the whole Iraq disaster WHICH SHE HELPED CREATE!!!!!!!
Hillary strikes me as completely machiavellian - she will do whatever it takes to win the presidency - hire Republican pollster, (hire Dick Morris, again??), say different things to different groups of people, raise money from questionable sources etc...
It is really quite sad. I have no enthusiasm or respect for Clinton. I have extreme doubts. I do not think she will make a good president - although of course she won't be as bad as GWB..
Carol, you'll be pleased to know that I am leaning toward Edwards at this time as well.
I will change my registration from nonpartisan to Democratic soon. Once that's done, I will cast my vote for Edwards come primary time, early next year.
Hillary will have my support if she wins the primaries, but she'll have to earn it.
Ally,
I too will support HIllary if she is the nominee, but probably not before.
I am trying to stay neutral as to candidates for Pres. The congressional races are interesting to me. But I do have to say I am really tired of the beauty pageants, the fake drama over money, and the frontrunner status horserace bull**** that pervades how we discuss who is the nominee.
We need the issues. Not the General Election version of "Survivor".
October 4, 2007 1:36 PM
Karen said:
Too often politicians see voters as recipients, rather than generators of policies. And too often voters see politicians as grocers, providing that which we need to purchase, rather than as governors.
If democracy is to work, like participatory dance forms, everyone has to show up, warm up, generate material, listen and observe, and support and give way as needed.
>>>>>>>>
I agree, Karen. It's kind of like the Cooperative Group Learning Model used in schools sometimes. It is based on the principal that the group can only succeed when all individuals of the group take on responsibility for particular aspects of the overall task. Group success is when all the parts cooperate to form the solution to the original task.
And when all are successful, there's no need for conflict.
October 4, 2007 3:40 PM
Fe said:
To govern too much would be a monarchy. Too little an anarchy.
>>>>>
I believe that the US, the UK, Australia and many European countries are governed too much. All our money is poured into looking like we are getting somewhere. There are so many people in different departments working on the same issue at different times. And with each new report having cost a gazillion dollars to be stamped into law, the country is getting poorer and poorer. I see our governments more as autocracies or dictatorships rather than monarchy.
On the monarchical side, I saw a lovely segment last night on an Area in Sudan. That area is a monarchy and the king takes pride in the children of his little nation being educated. Education and Peace are the road to success according to the king. And peace has reigned there for always. Hard to believe that its in the same country as Darfur.
Fe said:
I for one side with Mos Def when he talked about the Bushes and the Clintons and the White House. He said "They're passing the Presidency back and forth like a party bong!"
Hahahaha. I love that! And yes, I believe that if you install another Clinton, then who's the next Bush to come after her? Jeb?
I wish Americans would vote for the guy whose name I've completely forgotten but who made more sense than any American presidential hopeful I've seen or heard. I wish Americans would vote *against* the ones the media favour.
If only Americans would vote for the ones who are the poorest in financial terms but the richest in human terms.
October 4, 2007 6:50 PM
Victoria Ellen said:
I'd like a competent President again. If they need me to call them Mommy or Daddy, hey, whatever it takes.
Just quit fu**ing up my country.
>>>>>
And the world's countries!
October 4, 2007 7:36 PM
ralpheh said:
I do not think she will make a good president - although of course she won't be as bad as GWB..
>>>>>>>>
Hell, I'm pretty confident that I'd make a better president than GWB! And I don't even know how your political machinery runs. I'd still be a better choice. And I'm not even American. I'd still do less harm than the one who seized power.
But, I wouldn't go into it there, or here. A friend once said to me - following one of my passionate outbursts - that I should become a politician. I said, no way. People say mean things to politicians and the first insult I had to wear would make me cry! Being one of 7 kids didn't help me in becoming tougher-skinned.
In terms of listening, check out this story on Edwards going to a tiny town in ky (under 300)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/04/AR2007100402466.html?sub=AR
"Early in the summer, Edwards, who has lagged Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) in polls testing the race for the Democratic nomination, announced that he would come to whichever city demanded him most on Eventful. Shawn Dixon, born and raised in Columbus, took up the challenge, signing up for the site and launching a virtual lobbying campaign, sending e-mails, writing on blogs and contacting his friends on Facebook and MySpace. In the end Columbus bested cities such as Los Angeles, Dallas and Seattle, with votes from 1,870 Eventful users."