by Van Jones
2005: PROGRESSIVES BIRTH NEW INSTITUTIONS AND REINVENT CAPACITIES
Once again, people could have quit, saying, “We give up. We gave it our best shot. America just can’t be fixed.” But, once again, they didn’t quit. They held on to their “hopes,” and they kept fighting for “change.” Post-election blues did not turn into apathy.
Instead, the pro-democracy movement rapidly reinvented itself with a dazzling array of new tools and organizations. For instance, the Huffington Post Internet newspaper was born that year, bringing real sophistication and celebrity pizzazz to something the media had begun calling the “blogosphere.” Powered mainly by pajama-clad rebels against the Bush-Cheney status quo, progressive blog sites such as Daily Kos and Talking Points Memo matured to give liberals a new communication capacity that finally leveled the playing field with right-wing talk radio.
In that same vein, progressive talk radio network Air America hit its stride in 2005. Launched in 2004, it provided an important platform for on-air personalities Rachel Maddow, Thom Hartmann, and Al Franken. Those voices remain significant despite the network’s ultimate failure due to financial troubles. Former vice president Al Gore created a television network, Current TV, in the spring of 2005. While the network is still defining and refining its voice today, it provides an important, independent perspective in the media landscape.
By far the most significant contribution to the progressive media landscape came with Jon Stewart’s Daily Show, which averaged 1 million viewers per night in 2003 (and would go on to average 2 million viewers per night by 2008). A spin off, The Colbert Report, launched in 2005 to similar success. Cornering the market on “infotainment,” the two programs are so popular with young audiences (median age of thirty-five), they have become the primary news source within that demographic.
In 2005, Don’t Think of an Elephant became a must-read sensation among those frustrated with the Democrats’ chronic messaging misfires. Written by UC Berkeley linguistics professor George Lakoff, the 2004 book had progressives everywhere discussing the need for better “framing” of liberal issues and for more sophisticated communications overall. In hindsight, the pro-democracy movement was pre-adapting to rally around a national leader who could demonstrate the superior messaging skills and communications acumen that the party seemed to be lacking.
The same year, longtime Democratic Party stalwart Rob Stein helped to found the Democracy Alliance (DA), with major backing from heavy hitters Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance, Herb and Marion Sandler, and George Soros. Through the DA, major liberal donors could join forces to fund progressive infrastructure to counter the well-funded and sophisticated conservative apparatus. Since its founding, the DA has helped direct nearly $150 million to progressive organizations.
Also in 2005, a powerhouse coalition called the Apollo Alliance, founded in 2001, came into its own. Its goals included American energy independence, as well as cleaner and more energy-efficient alternatives. Its model of alliance skillfully bridged once-oppositional groups, including businesses, environmental organizations, and more than thirty labor unions. Together they popularized the idea of clean energy jobs. (I later joined its board of directors; Apollo supported me in promoting green jobs for low-income people and people of color through my own organizations—the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Green for All.)
With the Center for American Progress—founded by John Podesta in 2003 and coming into force by 2005—progressives finally had a think tank and policy center on par with the conservative Heritage Foundation. Existing heavyweights in the policy world—PolicyLink, Demos, Campaign for America’s Future, Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), and the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)—were ramping up their efforts.
Within this larger re-invention, the Democratic Party went through a major overhaul. Ironically, the party found itself in the hands of two fighters who held opposing visions of the way forward. Firebrand Howard Dean was now running the Democratic National Committee (DNC). He advocated a fifty-state strategy, insisting the Democrats had to become a truly national party, and he invested organizing resources around the country to make that happen. On the other hand, U.S. representative Rahm Emanuel had taken the helm at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). His job was to expand the number of Democrats in the House of Representatives—with a goal of taking over that body. He held the opposite view of Dean, vowing to focus party resources primarily on those purple districts where Emanuel thought Democrats could pick up seats. These two, strong-willed partisans fought bitterly and publicly over their divergent approaches. But in the end, perhaps both were right. By having a broad national strategy, complemented by areas of strategic focus, the Democrats were moving themselves into position for victory in 2006.
Bush’s presidency drowned in the floodwaters of Katrina. The smirking and the shirking in the White House just were not that cute any more.
But the most significant development in 2005 arose from tragedy. That August, Hurricane Katrina drowned an American city. Watching the predominately black residents of New Orleans struggle to survive while the Bush administration bungled the response, Americans on both sides of the political aisle were sickened. For millions, Bush’s presidency drowned in the floodwaters of Katrina. We were spending billions invading countries halfway around the world, but we could not help our own citizens get food, water, and shelter in their time of greatest need. The smirking and the shirking in the White House were just not that cute any more. Many came to the conclusion that something was desperately wrong in our country and that nothing could be fixed until the GOP stranglehold on all three branches of government was ended.
These inventive responses to our nation’s problems defined 2005—a year when those who thought the country was headed in the wrong direction started creating new institutions and birthing new ideas with which to win over the country.
2006: IMPERMANENT MAJORITY AND VICTORY OVER ROVE!
The accumulation of all of these innovations—and more—paid off handsomely in 2006. That year, Al Gore shattered the national and global complacency about climate and energy with his film An Inconvenient Truth. Gore’s courageous and inspired “Paul Revere” ride through the global consciousness presented a sharp contrast: the kind of moral leadership he would have brought to the White House had he won the presidential bid in 2000, versus the kowtowing to the military-petroleum complex that the Bush-Cheney administration represented. The public’s appetite for “change” was whetted. Deepening concerns about the planet’s fate super-charged the growing hunger for a powerful course correction.
Also, that year, a new force for good stepped out of the shadows and into the spotlight: the Latino-led movement for immigration reform. Savvy organizations such as the Center for Community Change (CCC), National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), National Council of La Raza (NCLR), Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (MEChA), and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) had been laying the groundwork for years. The trigger was the Border Protection, Anti-Terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005—also known as H.R. 4437. The proposed legislation would have classified as felons any undocumented immigrant, as well as anyone who helped undocumented immigrants enter or remain in the United States. And yet, in many places, the nation’s agricultural and service sectors were almost entirely dependent on immigrant labor. Brown hands were literally feeding, housing, and caring for millions of Americans. The idea that America would rely upon as well as attack the same community outraged people of conscience.
Spanish-language radio proved its capacity to mobilize millions. On May 1, 2006 (May Day), major demonstrations shook the country. On what was called the Day Without Immigrants, organizers called for Latinos to abstain from buying, selling, working, and attending school, to show the effect of Latinos on American society. Protests in Los Angeles drew between 600,000 and 1.5 million participants; New York saw 200,000 take to the streets, while 400
,000 people flooded the streets in Chicago. Seas of mostly Latino families, wearing white shirts and waving American flags, announced to the world that a new force was coming of age in America—and that GOP hostility toward the Spanish-speaking population might someday prove to be a pathway to electoral suicide.
The political climate of 2006 was also profoundly impacted by the ongoing military actions in Iraq and antiwar sentiment at home. Three years after the initial invasion and Bush’s May 1, 2003, declaration of the “end of major combat operations,” combat operations and casualties continued. Despite exorbitant investments in reconstruction, Iraq’s infrastructure was declared to be behind pre-war levels. Vice President Dick Cheney’s company, Halliburton, was fired by the U.S. Army for fraud.
By 2006 the revelations that there had never been weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and concerns that intelligence may have been fixed by the Bush and Tony Blair administrations, were part of everyday conversation. The scandal of prisoner abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib, which had come to light in 2004, undermined U.S. credibility before the world. Many were calling for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation. On American soil, the terrorist threat was used to justify warrantless wiretapping of ordinary citizens. In the eyes and minds of growing numbers of ordinary citizens, the entire situation was getting out of hand. Outrage, shame, and horror at the administration impacted Americans of all stripes.
As all of these factors began to converge, a breakthrough of some kind was inevitable. Shortly after the 2004 presidential election, Bush’s chief political strategist Karl Rove had allegedly declared that the Republican Party would be a “permanent majority party” and predicted the GOP would run the country for at least twenty more years. He was wrong. A bottom-up movement fueled by hope and demanding change, ended GOP domination in just twenty-four months.
In the 2006 midterm elections, no House, Senate, or gubernatorial seat held by a Democrat was won by a Republican. Not only did Democrats not lose any seats, but they also gained, winding up with a 233–202 advantage in the House of Representatives, and achieving a 49–49 tie in the United States Senate (or 51–49 advantage, if you counted Independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman). Democratic representative from California Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House, and U.S. senator from Nevada Harry Reid became the Senate Majority Leader: victory!
This success was achieved without anyone flying in wearing a bright, red cape. Once again, no messiah showed up to save the day. What triumphed was a massive outpouring of democratic passion, strengthened by innumerable centers of invention and energy. Even during the worst days of neoconservative rule in Washington, DC, a multicolored multitude refused to surrender—and it never gave up the fight for change.
2007: THE RISE OF OBAMA
It is worth restating: by the end of 2006, a rapidly maturing, technologically savvy, determined, and people-powered movement for change was already fired up and ready to go. It had swept statehouses across America. It had thoroughly mainstreamed opposition to Bush’s war in Iraq and placed the threat of global warming on the map. It had begun rewriting the political playbook with new technologies. It had humbled Rove. It had given the reins in the U.S. Senate to Reid, and elevated Pelosi to the third-highest seat in the U.S. government. Now it needed a champion to help it take the White House and bury Bush-ism forever.
Fortunately for all of us, providence delivered such a champion in the form of a U.S. senator named Barack Obama. He had entered public consciousness in 2004 with his electrifying keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. At the time, he was still virtually unknown—a state senator from Illinois. Obama called upon the audience to move beyond the divisive rhetoric of red states and blue states and to reaffirm our common allegiance to the United States of America. The sentiment and the passion touched a deep chord.
By the end of 2006, a rapidly maturing, technologically savvy, and people-powered movement for change was already fired up and ready to go.
A few years later he published The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, and he decided to leave Washington and travel the country to promote his book. The moment he left the Beltway bubble, he ran into a tsunami—everyday Americans who were fed up with the status quo. Everywhere he went, he was mobbed by people who wanted to see our country move in a new direction. By all accounts, Obama quickly realized that something rare and beautiful was happening. He understood that this remarkable new phenomenon was operating according to a different set of rules, conforming to a different logic model than anything like “politics as usual.”
He also recognized that U.S. senator Hillary Clinton, the presumptively unassailable frontrunner for the Democratic Party nomination, was poorly positioned as a presidential candidate to appeal to this rising power. He saw that she was playing a game that made sense in Washington, DC, but wouldn’t make sense in the context of this gathering force.
Obama recognized that this expanding, inchoate movement already had the potential to transcend the limits of either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. It could produce something more powerful than the Clinton brand or the McCain brand. And it could help elect someone to the U.S. presidency.
So he decided to run. And thank goodness he did, because he had a vision for the movement that was bigger than the movement’s vision for itself. Obama helped it achieve its highest aspirations and potential—redrawing the electoral map, turning climate and peace concerns into electoral issues, and bringing new voices and energy into the voting process.
The movement had grown and matured to the place where it could make good use of such a champion, and a man appeared who had the courage, integrity, and leadership qualities to make good use of a movement. So the man and the movement met each other—and together, they both met the moment. The resulting supernova was a global phenomenon.
There was a quality of the 2007–2008 Obama for America campaign that felt more like a religious revival than a normal political campaign effort. The big, super rallies turned out tens of thousands of people. The enthusiasm wasn’t about any particular policy detail or legislative proposal. It expressed a hunger for a kind of national rebirth. Something in the human spirit—and certainly in the spirit of America—had been depleted, or degraded, during the Bush years. The campaign helped to reignite something precious in the soul of America.
The 2007–2008 Obama for America campaign felt more like a religious revival than a normal political campaign.
By giving voice to millions, by enduring all of the trials of public life, candidate Barack Obama moved the entire country—indeed, the whole world. The history books will seldom again have the opportunity to record anything like his history-making, David-and-Goliath victory over the status quo in both political parties.
By giving voice to millions, candidate Barack Obama moved the entire country—indeed, the whole world.
But . . . Who Inspired Whom?
People who voted for Obama love to wax nostalgic about those thrilling days. Almost universally, they say, “I was so inspired!” It is true that Obama’s example and oratory lifted the nation’s spirits at a key time.
But we should never forget one thing: as much as Obama inspired the people, “We, the People” inspired Obama first.
The original act of boldness and daring came from ordinary people who challenged Bush and Bush-ism in the streets and at the ballot box; their audacity opened the door for Obama to challenge Hillary Clinton and then John McCain.
The grit and determination of ordinary folks kept alive the hope and fed the hunger for real change. Obama added his own momentum and magic to the growing wave, and then he rode it, with courage and skill, into the halls of power.
Today, in early 2012, hope is in short supply. The president must share some of the blame for this outcome (as I will discuss later), but so should the rest of us. In other words, if there exists a “hope gap” in America, we can’t merely point the finger at President Obama. We can’t b
lame the White House, because the movement for hope and change didn’t come out of the White House. The movement was not created by a single individual. It was cocreated by the hard work of millions of Americans, before Obama ever ran for president. It took mass participation and creativity to move the country onto safer ground. That spirit of engagement and commitment is needed now, more than ever, to resume the forward motion.
The campaign’s galvanizing slogan was never, “Yes, HE Can.”
It was always, “Yes, WE Can.”
And working together, we still can.
OBAMA AS PRESIDENT: SOME HOPES FULFILLED
It goes without saying that the Obama administration has disappointed many, if not most, of its original supporters and enthusiasts.
I will devote a good portion of this book to analyzing the demoralizing missteps and mistakes that the administration and the progressive movement, as a whole, have made since 2008. I will share my appraisal of each one. In trying to surface truths and extract the right lessons, I will take no prisoners. Some of my conclusions are harsh.
But, first, I want to remind the reader of President Obama’s more remarkable accomplishments, some of which are historic.
It is important to bear in mind that the following list of achievements came to pass in the most partisan and hostile environment in recent political memory, with the opposition party using the filibuster with unmatched abandon. These achievements also occurred amid a global economic crisis—worldwide environmental crisis—and during an era of global terrorism and instability. They were won in an America hollowed out by eight years of George W. Bush.