There was an opinion piece in The New York Times recently that criticized President Obama for wagging his finger at the younger generation who get off on being judgmental and insist on purity. “That’s not activism. That’s not bringing about change, If all you’re doing is casting stones, that probably won’t get you far.” The opinion writer was very offended and criticized the older generation’s way of doing things. She embraced the power of social media.
This is a hard one. We, young and old liberals/progressives, want to effect change. That's the bottom line. The question is how best to get there.
There are situations where a zero tolerance approach is appropriate, where we should express our outrage, en masse. In the street, not just on your screen. Sometimes, enough people expressing outrage can by its own power effect change, either by toppling those in power or having those in power accept change.
More frequently though, the world is so complex and resistance to change so strong that even masses expressing outrage in public protest will not in and of itself effect change. But that mass expression of outrage is still important, for only then can people with access to power follow up by arguing for change, at least incremental.
Indeed, I would argue that we need more mass expressions of outrage, such as we had against the Vietnam War. And it can’t be just once and done. There must be an extended series of protests. Those in power must see that the opposition has staying power; that they haven’t spent all their energy on one demonstration and then it’s back to business as unusual.
Now when it comes to negotiating with those in power, you have the best chance of success when they don’t have their backs up. The problem with many young progressives and some older ones too is that they don't just state the facts, they don’t just argue, they bully and are full of hatred.
That is not the way to influence people. A good example of this is Rep. Ilhan Omar. I agree with much of what she says, but as I've said in previous posts, she often says it in a way which is counter-productive. She is her own worst enemy, in terms of being effectual.
Obama's point was not to castigate those who argue for change. His point was that one needs to do so in a way that will effectuate change. Sometimes, perhaps often, that will require compromise. And that should not be a dirty word. You do not sell out if you compromise. Rather, if you insist on purity, you will almost never effect change and thus truly betray your cause.
