The only thing I did was wrong
Stayed in the wilderness too long.
Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on.
The only thing we did was right
Was the day we began to fight.
Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on.
I’m not sure revolutionaries turn out to be the best leaders after they win. They’ve seen that something was badly wrong, and they’ve had the courage to stand up and fight for the just cause. It takes a single mindedness and a dedication. One of the main forces that drives such people is a sense of being right. I remember it from the sixties. Segregation was wrong – absolutely. Same thing with Viet Nam – totally wrong. We gathered and revelled in being "right" together. Our rightness was our bond – a band of brothers and sisters. God, I loved those days!
Unfortunately, there’s a down side to being right. There’s no such thing as right, even though there is such a thing as wrong. So, when you win, you want to keep being right, and there’s no right to be anymore. The ascendancy of the American Conservatives is an example of what happens to revolutionaries. The Republican Conservatives absolutely blew it under Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. They got thrown out in 1932, and it took them over a half a century to make a comeback. First Reagan in 1980, then the "Contract with America" Congressional takeover in 1994, and finally the whole government in 2000 [George Bush and both Houses of Congress].
For fifty or sixty years, they’d fomented about the way Democrats govern – weak conciliatory foreign policy, strong regulation of businesses, environmental mania, social programs, taxation of the wealthy, touchy-feely attitudes towards minorities – the list went on and on. Finally, they came into power determined to set things right. Instead of governing the country they had, they set out to change it into the country they’d longed for since their collapse in the 1930’s. What they did was a disaster and ultimately reproduced the situation that brought them down last time. It didn’t take them very long to fail. They’re already regrouping to be heroic revolutionaries together again. God, they love thinking they’re right!
On our side, we’ve got a version of the premise that revolutionaries don’t turn out to be the best leaders after they win. After eight years of living in the wilderness and learning to fight, our critical [and self righteous] skills are honed to perfection. We won big time, but our criticism is still going strong. Why did Obama pick Leon Panetta to lead the C.I.A.? Harry Reid is not going to allow Roland Burris to be seated in the Senate. Rick Warren doesn’t support Gay Marriage! Eric Holder was too vigorous in his banana case. The Atheists are suing to get get "so help me God" out of the oath of office. Lawrence Summers was wrong about Derivitives and Regulation!
Creating an environment where Barack Obama could be elected President was a task that spans my lifetime. The heros of the Civil Rights Movement did their part. The blogosphere did its part too – hammering at the abuses of power under Bush. Enough of the Religious Right was able to see that their monocular voting was misguided. Barack Obama gets a lot of credit himself, for being smart, honest, and patient. I think those of us with a utopian, revolutionary bent would do well to back off on him. He’s got enough on his plate with the crazies left over from the Bush Administration. I’m particularly worried about Harry Reid. He’s been a good fighter, but I wonder if he can adapt his temper to being a wise leader for the Senate. Even the firebrands from the blogosphere are asking him to lighten up, and reminding him of the rule of law.
I worry about Reid too, and have since he became majority leader. He seems more prickly and reactive than a strong leader. But I believe Obama is already showing a willingness and an ability to influence him. Two indications this morning:
After almost belligerently saying last week that Burris would not be seated, today he first had backtracked to blaming it on his lack of proper credentials, since the IL Sec of State had not certified his appointment. Then later, after Obama’s people had let it be known that he wished him seated, it was announced that he will be.
Then, Harry Reid gave an interview in which he stated that “I do not work for Obama.” That was the headline. The actual quote was a little softer, but the meaning was the same. Reid stated, “I don’t believe in the executive power trumping everything… I believe in our Constitution, three separate but equal branches of government. . . . If Obama steps over the bounds, I will tell him. … I do not work for Barack Obama. I work with him,” he said.
Sounds to me like a man who has just been leaned on and relented — and feels the need to assert that he’s not a pushover. It also shows Obama’s strength within his own party. He will use it, but use it judiciously that retains good relationships.
In short, what I’m extrapolating from this is that I think Obama has the ability to win the revolution and to govern wisely.
Yeah, I liked finishing this comment, then reading how Reid handled himself later. I don’t see Obama as a “revolutionary.” I see him as being the rational guy who lacks the self-righteousness of the revolutionary – but carries the hologram of its meaning. I want our team to let him pick whoever he wants to pick. And so long as he “keeps his eyes on the prize,” I’ll spot him a lot.
Everytime I wince a bit at one of his appointments, I later come to see why he did it — and find the rationale believable. Like Diane Finestein’s initial negative reaction to the Panetta CIA appointment, and then supporting it. Despite his not coming from the intelligence community, it’s clear that Obama wanted someone who was not “tainted” by it and someone who is a good administrator — who also knows his way around Washington and can get things done. And he’s smart enough to keep as #2 the man who does know a lot about intelligence. Sounds like a winning combination.