She then drew a vertical axis and labeled it with “conventional” at the top and “intentional” at the bottom, making the claim that most church conflicts happen on this axis, not on the liberal-conservative one.  The example she gave was one of the most divisive issues that can be found in congregations these days - traditional vs. contemporary worship.  More churches have gone to war over whether to have organ or guitar music than over the issue of ordaining gays. 

Bass’ argument was that changing and breaking with long-held traditions is where the church faces its greatest challenges these days.  It’s not about resolving the conflict between liberals and conservatives, a conflict which has been around for over a century and which will never get resolved through arguing.  It’s about transforming traditional practices.

Much of what Bass said about church conflict can also be said about the world of politics, especially when it comes to the recent presidential election.  Certainly, there were issues in the election that fall neatly onto the liberal-conservative axis: taxes, the war in Iraq, abortion, gay marriage, etc.  But John McCain’s own adviser famously said that the campaign was not about the issues, which begs the obvious question, “OK, then, what was it about?”

It was about that vertical axis that Bass drew.  It was about “convention” vs. “intention.”  It was about doing things the way they’ve always been done vs. change.  What will history remember most about the 2008 election?  That it was a mandate to end the War in Iraq?  That it was a victory of raising taxes on the wealthy over trickle-down theory?  That it was a validation of Obama’s almost-universal health care plan?  Hardly.

Those left vs. right issues will certainly be important in the coming years, but they’re not what carried Obama to a resounding victory.  Obama won because the people wanted change.  They wanted something different than George Bush and Bill Clinton and the same old Washington political games.  McCain tried to present himself as the real option for change, but in the end, he lost because he couldn’t help but represent tradition and convention.

What will be remembered about 2008 is that Obama is the first black president.  That he is the first post-Boomer president.  That he is the first tech-saavy president.  Perhaps even that he is the first post-partisan president.  And that he ran (for the most part) a positive and uplifting campaign.  All of these things have nothing to do with being liberal or conservative.  They have nothing to do with this dichotomy that has been placed on our politics throughout American history.   They have to do with something else, something that is bubbling forth from our culture that Obama was smart enough to tap into. 

At the end of Diana Butler Bass’ seminar, she introduced a third axis into her model, making it three-dimensional.  This third axis was the movement from modernism to post-modernism.  Bass didn’t spend too much time trying to describe post-modernism and what the coming years will look like, but she assured us that the church that exists 50 years from now will bear little resemblance to the modern relic that exists right now. 

I think we can say the same for politics and for the world in general.  Whatever things look like in the year 2058, I feel certain that the Obama presidency will be viewed as the beginning of a whole new epoch - and not because of policy, but because of process.  He will go down as a great president not because he will accomplish partisan victories, but because he will transform the methods and practices by which a president governs and leads.

This morning, I downloaded the first of Obama’s Youtube addresses, a true “Fireside Chat” for the 21st century.  I wonder if John McCain even knows how to use Youtube.  I can’t help but marvel at how much things are already changing.

Having been born in 1961, Obama is technically a Baby Boomer.  But the recent presidential debates demonstrate the fact that Obama is functionally a postmodern “X’er” in both style and outlook.  John McCain, by contrast, is still firmly rooted in the world of modernism:

Obama spoke with empathy about the personal effects of the current financial crisis on Main Street America. McCain spoke of individual greed and said the government needs to hold the failed executives accountable. McCain underscored personal morals where Obama accentuated communal values.

Obama consistently drew attention to points of agreement with McCain. By contrast, McCain perpetuated the Right vs. Left dichotomy by describing Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate. While Obama sought to build consensus, McCain pointed out their differences.

Nationalism is a key reality of the modern world. But postmodernism prioritizes the global community. Talking about Iraq, McCain promised to seek American “victory and honor.” Obama was more concerned about America’s global reputation.

In their exchanges, Obama called McCain by his first name, drawing attention to his personality. McCain never reciprocated, indicating respect for Obama’s office but not necessarily for Obama himself.

Personal morality vs. communal values.  Dichotomizing vs. consensus.  Confrontation vs. negotiation.   Nationalism vs. globalism.   Obviously, these distinctions cannot be universally applied to McCain and Obama.  But the debates did clearly show how Obama operates from a very different approach and a very different way of looking at the world.  The Obama victory indicates the fact that although the United States as a whole might not be a postmodern culture quite yet, we are certainly moving steadily across that river.  That so many younger voters who are firmly rooted in the postmodern worldview came out and voted for Obama further illustrates this shifting reality.

Personally, I am more excited about the postmodern flavor of the upcoming Obama presidency than anything else.  Much is being made of the significance of his victory for African Americans and all minorities, as it should be.  Much is being made of the defeat of neo-conservatism and the weakening of the Republican Party, as it should be.  And much is being made of the great gains made by women in this campaign, as it should be.

But all of those triumphs can be placed under this much larger shift in our culture that has now made its way to the highest office in the land.  Obama will be a different kind of president.  To many folks in the older generations, the way he does things and the way he talks about things will seem foreign.  But to those of us in the younger generations, he will be an absolute breath of fresh air - for we will finally feel that our worldview and our way of dealing with reality is being represented.

Name 3 things that the Republican Party and the Electoral College have in common.

(1) They both got started a long time ago for excellent reasons. 

(2) They both have outlived their usefulness.

(3) They’ll both have a lot of free time until the next election.

Things are lookig pretty grim for the GOP.  Just eight years ago, the Republicans completed their “revolution” and enjoyed control of the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court.  It was the beginning, we were told, of a glorious run that might have no end. 

Amazingly, though, we are now looking at almost the exact opposite scenario.  Assuming an Obama victory, come January the Democrats will be just a couple of timely Supreme Court openings away from power across the board. Will the Democrats become victims of their own success, as the Republicans did, or will their reign be longer and more productive?  Only time will tell.

But perhaps the more fascinating question is, what will become of the GOP if McCain loses and loses big?  The party leadership will be in shambles, and the ideological divisions between the Romneys and the Palins will only deepen.  I see four likely scenarios for the long-term effects of this split: (much of this, mind you, is tongue-in-cheek)

1) The Republicans will do what the Democrats have done: Regroup, rebuild, and hope that a transformational young leader will emerge to craft a new party vision that can challenge incumbents in 2012 or 2016. (Sorry, Palin. It’s not you!)

2) The Republicans will fracture.  Many will help start a new party that will look like a business-friendly libertarianism and will be hailed as a return to true conservatism.  Others will opt for a doomed-to-fail ultra-conservative/fundamentalist party that will cling to issues like abortion, gay marriage, and evolution. (Palin will be their first nominee).

3) Much the same as #2, except that the more moderate Republicans, wanting to hitch their wagon to a winner, will move toward the Democrats and Obama’s uniting leadership style. Eventually, though, the tent won’t be big enough, and the Democrats will split into left and right wings that become the two new major parties.  (Harold Ford will lead the right wing.)  The Palin Republicans will be a vocal third party that occasionally wins a red state from the deep south or the midwest.

4) It will all be just a repeat of the 1990’s.  The bitter Republicans minority will reunite under the banner of stifling Democratic reform.  With renewed confidence, they will rally and take back at least one house of Congress in 2010.  The Republicans will gradually rebuild their base throughout Obama’s two terms, and thanks to a scandal or some sort of crisis, they sweep back to power in 2016 - with the former governor of a large southern state whose last name will sound painfully familiar.

Which of these possibilities for the future of the Republican Party do you think is most plausible?

The Great Depression was an era of extraordinary political innovation, much of it expressed in the reforms enacted by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and his administration’s attempts to cope with the problems of poverty, unemployment, and the disintegration of the American economy. It was also a time when a significant number of Americans flirted with Marxist movements and ideas, as well as with the notion that the model for a more humane society could be found in the Soviet Union. Above all, it was a decade of cultural ferment, in which American writers, artists, and intellectuals experimented with new, more socially oriented forms of literature, painting, theatre, music, and mass entertainment.

So the 1930’s, as difficult as they were, were years when American society managed to transform itself and lay solid foundations for the future - politically, economically, and culturally.  It seems that the time has now arrived for another transformation.

The 2008 crisis is unlikely to approach the size and scope of the Great Depression, but the nature of the problems do show some similarities:  collapsing financial institutions; not enough government oversight; rising poverty and unemployment; a highly unpopular president; and an overall atmosphere of fear and institutional distrust.  In addition, the American culture of the last decade or two bears some resemblance to the self-absorbed,  materialistic society of the Roaring Twenties.  In both cases, the excesses of one generation lead to the hardship and then the innovation of the next.

And this is where the opportunism comes in.  The coming years are going to be difficult years, relatively speaking.  But they are also going to be years of opportunity.  Politically, it will be a chance for a new generation of leaders with new ideas to emerge and bring forth a new way of doing government.   I’m voting for the progressive politics of economic, civil, and environmental justice.

Economically, it will be a time to bring back some sanity and some good ‘old fashioned American prudence, especially when it comes to consumption and energy.  And culturally, who knows?  I, for one, cannot wait to see what the emerging generation of artists has to say about all of this.

Compare 1929 to 1949.  Radical changes in both the United States and the world.  Whatever happens out of this crisis, I think it’s safe to say that the society that ultimately emerges from the next decade or two will be a very different society than the one we know right now.  Perhaps we should consider this our call to arms to make sure that it’s the right kind of transformation.

When I reported on the fact that one of Dennis Kucinich’s articles of impeachment had been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, I had no idea that it would generate such a strong response.  Judging by the votes and the comments on Reddit and Digg, there is a monumental amount of pent-up anger and frustration out there about the many misdeeds of the Bush administration. 

Perhaps the most interesting comment came from Digg user jenniferstruth:

Bush is not the only one guilty of these war crimes.  However, as the sitting president he is responsible since he started his signing statements and executive orders declaring himself unitary executive. Saddam was a monster as is Bush. Sadaam was also set up by our government to be the fall guy, much like Bush is being set up by the ruling elite to be the fall guy for the war, the financial collapse and the environment.

It’s almost as if certain powers-that-be planned this war in advance and then duped both Saddam and Bush into starting it.  That’s a level of truth most Americans don’t want to hear, but it’s a truth that needs to be told.  Thanks, jenniferstruth, and we hope to hear more from you.

But what I really like about the comment is that it holds Bush responsible for the crimes he has committed, but also alerts us to the sobering reality that getting rid of Bush in no way gets rid of the totalitarian threat that has emerged during his presidency.  We can and should impeach Bush, but let’s not fool ourselves into believing that cutting off the head will in any way slow this beast down.

What will be needed to restore our country to sanity and Constitutional governance is a much more broad based movement.  A movement that starts with the Oval Office and Congress, but that extends through all aspects of our society - government, media, the corporate world, religious groups, and educational institutions.  A movement that says no to politics and economics that are greedy, power-hungry, fear-based, and xenophobic. 

In the ancient Hebrew society, the priests would send an innocent lamb out into wilderness to die, believing that the sacrifice would help drive evil from their midst.  George Bush is far, far away from being innocent - but perhaps the emotional call for his impeachment is born from a similar psychology.  Those of us who are absolutely disgusted by the evils we have seen in the Bush administartion might be tempted to believe that eliminating Bush would eliminate the evil. 

But impeachment, as unlikely a possibility as it is, is not enough.  I like the way Jason Rosenbaum states it, saying that once the election is done, and once Bush is finally known as an ex-president, then the battle begins.  

Which makes what happened in Boston on December 16, 1773 all the more remarkable. On that night, a group of American patriots dressed up as Mohawks, boarded the ships of the East India Comapny, and dumped 342 chests of tea into the harbor - an event which has famously become known as the “Boston Tea Party.”

The patriots were protesting Parliament’s lowering of the tax on tea - corporate tax breaks, if you will. Parliament’s agenda was to boost the company’s sagging profits, and drive the colonial smugglers out of business. On the surface, it appears that Parliament was merely trying to eliminate the underground, tax-free economy. Interpreted another way, it means that the government was helping the mega-corporation drive the independent little guys out of business. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

However we interpret the Boston Tea Party, it is a clear case of concerned citizens boldly taking a stand against overwhleming corporate power. When the American colonies gained independence a few years laters, the Founding Fathers were careful to place strict restrictions on corporate powers.

Those restrictions, however, have slowly evaporated, and we are now in an era where corporations might once again approach the power and scope of the British East India Company.  The larger and more expansive corporations get, the more they tend to disregard the environment, human rights, and the general welfare of the communities in which they operate (although, to be fair, there are many companies that do very well in these areas).

I live in fear of the day when we see a company like ExxonMobil merge with a company like Blackwater, and the transition from the rule of the nation-state to the rule of the corporation becomes complete. In order to get a handle on the expanding power of corporations, we need a Boston Tea Party for the 21st Century. We need a new type of bold action that can once again restore economic power to “We The People.”

How do we become 21st century patriots?  How do we go about reclaiming our independence from the tyranny of big business?

Boy, was I disappointed.  The only type of transportation she mentioned was highways, and her basic point was that she wants to shift responsibility from the federal to the state level.

Federal programs should focus on real national transportation interests, rather than trying to be all things to all people. We do not need 108 different programs and thousands of earmarks second-guessing your priorities.  We will propose giving Governors more direct control of federal resources, with flexibility to decide the best way to use them to improve the condition of their Interstates and major highways, relieve congestion, and improve safety. America’s transportation system can be better, and my goal is to clear federal obstacles to innovation and investment so you can make that happen. 

Translation:  The federal government is busy trying to keep terrorists off airplanes, so don’t look to us for any solutions to this transportation crisis. 

This type of abdication of responsibility on the domestic front is what we’ve grown used to with the Bush Adminstration.  Bush was “Johnny on the Spot” when it came to responding to 9-11.  (In fact, he rushed us into war without proper cause).  But for needs like rescuing Katrina victims, improving veterans’ treatment, and doing something about the current gas crisis, Bush and his appointees have consistently dropped the ball.  The tendency is to shift responsibility to states and the private sector.

The Bush adminstration should be seizing this rare opportunity.  There is a silver lining in the skyrocketing cost of oil.  Right now, the public is galvanized for action.  We’re all aware that this might get a lot worse than $4 a gallon, and therefore we are willing to make some serious changes in the way we do things - provided we have strong leadership. 

Shame on you, Mary Peters, for suggesting that the federal government should do less, not more, and for not talking about improving public transportation.

Shame on you, George Bush, for producing an administration that completely lacks vision and innovation, that worries more about what’s good for American business than what’s good for the American people. 

Shame on you, John McCain, for your opportunistic pandering and for making Bush-like lame proposals such as the gas tax holiday.

And shame on you, too, Barack Obama.  Of all people, I would be expecting you to offer something a little more bold and creative than the same old proposals on cap and trade, biofuels, and hybrids.  Give us a little change we can really believe in.  Help us envision a network of high speed trains that can move us around the country at 300 mph; and help us make sure that in the future, cars are purely recreational vehicles. 

Whatever happened to leadership that can truly challenge and inspire us?

Having arrived in Seattle on Saturday morning by charter bus with about 300 others from Oregon, we were greeted by a picturesque day and the sounds of the marchers preparing. After assisting a few groups with their signage, I was struck most by the range of viewpoints represented by the various marchers and their signage. The only thing holding so many people with so many different interests together (even just for an afternoon) is a disgust with the status quo and the absurdity of this war. I couldn’t help but think that a more unified image might make a larger impact with the public. On the other hand, conformist probably wouldn’t have come out at all.

My day actually started some hours earlier in Portland when I overheard an older gentlemen (a demographic well represented) comment that perhaps we could send a better message if everyone “dressed up”. I unbuttoned my over coat far enough for him to notice my suit, and struck up a conversation. While we were speaking, I overheard two negative comments about my attire. I was pointed out by a passerby to their companion as an example of someone “from the other side” and another accused me of being a politician. When attempted to explain my/our position and to hand out flyers, most people agreed with the concept, but all had a “reason” why they couldn’t wear a suit (the most common being that they only own one). I also had with me pictures of MLK and marchers from the Civil Rights movements, and more recently the lawyers in Pakistan. The visual reminder that this isn’t the first time someone dressed professionally in such a setting seemed to disarm any who would listen.

Once in Seattle, there were similar comments made, but mostly I noticed that I got just as many snapshots taken of me and second looks as the people who had gone to apparently great lengths with their attire. I should point out that a button down shirt and tie take far less time to prepare than giant paper-mache costumes. I also noticed at least one other individual in a suit. I was unable to reach him, but did notice his picture on the pdxpeace.org web site.

My thoughts by the end of the day were returning to the seeming futility of changing any minds through such action, as some of the speakers were uninspiring and the rally seemed to just “peter out”. (I will defend your right to speak your mind to the death, but PLEASE speak it coherently!) On the other hand, all movements start some where, with someone. I try these days to remind myself: Don’t ask how to get 1 million backsides out of their chairs – start with the one you’re sitting on.

Scott M. Eilers originally hails from the Midwest, calling Chicago home until earlier this year. He is currently in Eugene, Oregon planning the next move for him self, his society, and world.

Perhaps people have tired of Vietnam era tactics, but whatever the reason, the mainstream media’s coverage of typical demonstrations is full of barely concealed disdain for those protesting. A perfect example comes from the New York Times’ coverage of the large anti-war march in Washington D.C. on September 15th. For one, their article concentrates on the civil disobedience aspect of this protest with the headline, “Antiwar Protest Ends With Dozens of Arrests.” This is misleading. The protest, which I attended, was largely peaceful, with civil disobedience being only a small part of the day’s events and coming at the end of a peaceful rally with many speakers (which were barely mentioned in the article) and a peaceful march from the White House to the Capitol (which was also barely mentioned in the article).

If fact, the discussion of the actual march was dominated by quotes and sympathetic descriptions of counter-protesters who attended the event as well. I understand that the Times wants to get both sides of the story and appear “unbiased,” but even though there were maybe 200 counter-protesters that day as compared to close to 10,000 anti-war demonstrators, the counter-protesters were given four of the article’s fourteen paragraphs. When you eliminate the paragraphs dealing with violence as well, only five paragraphs dealt with the peaceful portions of the march, which were the actual substance of the event in my opinion.

On top of that, the Times presented the counter-protesters in a very positive light, interviewing a family with multiple relatives serving in Iraq and using the quote, “It’s not just Iraq, it’s the whole Middle East. It’s not a red, blue or pink issue. It’s an all-of-us issue.” Event though these protesters were cursing at and confronting those demonstrating against the war, they seem reasonable with this quote. In contrast, the Times quotes some of the more extreme anti-war protesters, including one who planned to get arrested and another who wore an orange jumpsuit and a dark hood to the event.

Contrast this biased coverage with the coverage in the same paper of the recent protests by Pakistani lawyers and a sympathy protest by lawyers in Washington D.C., both of whom demonstrated against Pakistani President Musharraf’s recent turn toward tyranny. All of these protesters, it should be noted, were dressed in professional attire.

The lawyers from Pakistan were treated with respect by the Times. The articles written about them are dominated by coverage of their cause, their plight, and the resulting crackdown. Only a few paragraphs are devoted to elucidating Musharraf’s viewpoint. The Times also ran a lengthy and glowing article on Aitzaz Ahsan, the leader of the Pakistani protest movement, calling him “one of the country’s best known lawyers,” “a natural raconteur,” and at times comparing him to Pakistani movie stars. All of this is a far cry from the bland, vaguely hostile portrayal of anti-war protesters as detailed above.

The lawyers who protested in professional attire in D.C. in solidarity were also treated reverentially. Again, from the Times:

Within 30 minutes, they gathered, spoke words of inspiration and disbanded. No fights. No arrests. Just a very ruly crowd of lawyers, most of whom were not from Pakistan.

Photos of the protest also made the Times’ pictures of the day series. The Times concluded the short but positive piece by casting these protesters in a heroic light:

The speakers thanked the crowd for showing up. The crowd applauded and began to disband. Within a few short minutes, the steps had cleared, and the lawyers went back to defending the rights of others.

Clearly, these protesters were treated differently.

So what’s the difference between the two groups of demonstrators, the Pakistani lawyers and sympathy marchers on one hand and anti-war protesters on the other? Honestly, very little except for their method of presentation. Both groups are protesting for a cause with broad popular support. (Two thirds of Americans think the war in Iraq “wasn’t worth it” and few can stomach Musharraf’s widening dictatorship.) Both groups have strong political messages and similar protest tactics comprised mainly of peaceful marches. Yet one group presents themselves in professional attire and the other group does not.

Certainly, media attention isn’t everything. Some anti-war protesters would probably say they could care less how the media portrays them. They feel the need to demonstrate their opposition to the war in whatever way they find natural. And of course, they have every right to do so. However, in today’s media saturated world, it is unwise to completely disregard media narratives, especially if your goal is to force a major shift in policy that is impossible without broad, vocal support. With the media on the side of the Pakistani protesters, their cause received far greater positive attention than their numbers might have suggested. What more could be accomplished if the media was similarly on the side of anti-war protesters?

Protesting in professional attire clearly communicates the protest’s message more effectively. The picture of D.C. lawyers marching in suits in front of the Supreme Court is striking and demands attention. The media picks up on that message and helps spread the ideas to a wider audience. Moreover, I think that the professionally dressed protesters make a stronger impact on the average American. They are simply more likely to be impressed by these images. While it is tempting to believe in a world where the message supersedes the presentation, image still counts. By dressing up before going to protests, one can make their personal demonstration that much more effective.

We encourage you to join us and dress in professional attire whenever you protest. We believe you will be more powerful if you do. If you want to join us in a more formal way, sign up for Serious Change’s email list to receive notices about upcoming events.

Let’s end this war!

On October 27th, Serious Change supporters attended antiwar protests in six cities:

New York

Chicago

Philadelphia

Orlando

Seattle

And Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Dressed in professional attire, 23 strong across the country, we proved the effectiveness of our tactics once again.

Serious Change started as an idea. It grew from four supporters to twenty-three in two months. This time around, we succeeded in both of our objectives: attracting media attention and growing the movement.

MEDIA

Serious Change contributes to the antiwar movement by reclaiming the symbols of power and using them to present the antiwar message in a different way. As before, media interest showed us that our approach was working:

Even before the protests, WGOW (102.3 FM) Radio in Tennessee invited Serious Change’s Jason Rosenbaum on the air for an interview. Jason discussed the movement’s aims and answered questions from callers, including representatives of ANSWER Coalition.

In New York, Serious Change co-founder Josh Nelson was interviewed by the New Jersey Star-Ledger. Other journalists approached our New York group as well, so more coverage may be forthcoming.

Finally, Serious Change continued to receive coverage in the blogosphere in posts such as this one.

GROWTH

Serious Change also contributes to the antiwar movement by strengthening the connection between online organizing and street activism. We were pleased and encouraged to see the movement spread not only through our individual social networks, but also through the connections we made with activists in distant parts of America, solely through the internet. Some say internet activists only criticize and never act; this weekend, Serious Change proved them wrong. The internet facilitated our organizing efforts, taking the movement to the national stage only six weeks after its founding.

Finally, articles like these complete the cycle: writing about street actions generates buzz online. With support from the antiwar community online, our next action will be even bigger.

**************************************

Serious Change thanks everyone who supported us and we commend all those who joined together to protest the American occupation of Iraq. Encouraged by the response we got on October 27th, we are eager to continue organizing.

Our movement’s successes are made possible by ordinary citizens. With your support, we will continue to grow. We encourage anyone interested in Serious Change to sign up for our email list, visit our website, and check back regularly for updates on our upcoming antiwar actions.

Let’s end this war!