Yes We Can Dare to Hope ... But We'll Need to Work Hard to Bring Real Change

Obama has the ability to do a lot of good as long as we reject the temptation of feeling hopeless and cynical.

I was among the 2 million people who assembled on the Washington Mall to witness the moment. I was willing to come all the way from California, pay the airfare -- and leave the carbon footprint -- in order to join my daughter, Kalila, in watching history being made.

I have written a series of articles raising concerns about various positions Barack Obama had staked out during the presidential campaign and, in particular, raising questions about some of the appointments he has made. I will no doubt write more such articles over the next four to eight years.

And yet I was able to shed tears of joy on a number of occasions Tuesday. I wasn't just relieved that a Democrat had won the White House. I was actually (what's this strange feeling?) happy.

Kalila, a student at Earlham College in Indiana, and I arrived at the Washington Mall in the predawn hours to get as close to the Capitol as possible without tickets. Most of the people in our segment of the mall who had also made the effort to arrive at 4 a.m. were African Americans, many of whom had traveled great distances -- not without financial and other sacrifices -- in order to be there in person to watch a black man inaugurated as president of the United States, something few of them imagined they would ever see.

We entertained each other singing some of the great spirituals popularized during the civil rights struggle I had learned in my youth in the early 1960s when my father taught at Tougaloo, a black college in Mississippi, where he served as faculty adviser for the local chapter of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. From out of the darkness in the subfreezing temperatures came the sounds of "Woke up This Morning With Mind Set on Freedom," "Keep Your Eyes on That Prize," "This Little Light of Mine" and "Lift Up Your Voice and Sing."

Growing up in the South, I have vivid memories of Jim Crow laws. Although my family and I were white, virtually all our neighbors were black, and while the violence toward us was limited to some random gunshots fired at our house, the reality of the fear from repression by state authorities was all around me, along with the daily humiliation my young friends and their parents experienced from segregation. I could go to almost all the movie theaters, playgrounds, amusement parks, fast-food outlets and engage in as many other recreational activities a child could want, but I could not go with any of my friends.

Against all odds, people organized, faced down the attack dogs and fire hoses and forced an end to that kind of legal discrimination in America. People of color were able to take on new positions of leadership once denied them. At the same time, however, there was no question that real power remained almost exclusively in the hands of white men.

Yet here I was, in the nation's capital, watching an African American being sworn in as president of the United States. A man who, as a boy, would have been considered illegitimate in Mississippi and nearly two dozen other states for having a white mother and a black father. A man who is married to a descendent of slaves who grew up in the largely segregated black neighborhoods of South Chicago. A man who for years worked as an organizer in the black community and was strongly influenced by the progressive theology of the black church.

His election was not a result of, as one African American comedian put it, people being "so worried about whether he was a Muslim or a socialist, they forgot he was black!" People knew. Obama's race presumably cost him far more votes than it gained. Yet he won decisively and is entering office with a 78 percent approval rating, the highest ever recorded for an incoming president.

Who would have imagined as little as five years ago, with the jingoistic militarism that so dominated American political discourse, that the next president of the United States would be an African American man with a Muslim father, with the middle name of Hussein, who had for years served as a community organizer with progressive grassroots organizations, and at that time had held no elected office higher than representing a predominantly black district in a state senate?

The personal significance of the day hit me when someone came through the crowd handing out American flags, and I found myself eagerly reaching for one.

I have held flags when I thought it was appropriate for certain ceremonial occasions, but I don't recall, since I was very young, actually being eager to do so. This past reluctance came not out of any innate lack of patriotism, but from the fact that the flag has too often represented national chauvinism or support for U.S. militarism and imperialism, not from a genuine love of country. Yet on that day, I could actually feel a deep pride for being an American and being seen waving a flag.

I also knew that there were millions of people around the world excitedly watching the inauguration ceremony on television, from modern apartments in the Netherlands to remote villages in Kenya to the urban slums of Indonesia to the rubble of Gaza, who were thinking that maybe they could actually feel good about the United States again. I thought about how different it would now feel for me to show my U.S. passport going through customs in a foreign country and not feel embarrassed because of my president.

Minutes after the end of the ceremony, with viewing areas for the inaugural parade down Pennsylvania Avenue already full, I asked a Secret Service agent about the possibility of hanging out at the corner of the mall by the National Gallery where the parade commenced. He said that it would be a great place to view where the floats and marching bands converged to start the parade, but that President Obama would be joining the procession a block north from that point at Pennsylvania Avenue.

I paused. "President Obama." Only minutes old, the combination of that title and that name were the most beautiful words I could possibly hear, particularly after hearing so constantly for the past eight years the words "President Bush." I held onto my daughter and burst into tears.

Obama has become president of the United States because rather than appealing to the worst instincts of American voters -- which had made possible the disastrous eight years of the Bush administration -- he appealed to our best instincts.

Instead of divisiveness, he offered unity. Instead of manipulating people's fear and prejudices, he offered a sense of hope and faith stemming from the most progressive and visionary aspects of our country's heritage. It was a message that inspired Kalila and so many other young people to help elect him president. It was a message that made it possible for a sometimes-cynical leftist like me to stand for hours in the cold on the Washington Mall and wave an American flag.

Indeed, the only emotion that came close to the excitement of seeing Obama come to office was seeing George W. Bush leaving office.

Soon after the end of the swearing-in ceremony, as the now ex-president lifted off in his helicopter from the Capitol grounds for Andrews Air Force Base to take the jet that would take him back home to Texas, hundreds of thousands of people on the mall started waving at the helicopter and joyously singing: "Nah-nah-nah-nah, nah-nah-nah-nah, hey hey hey, goodbye!"

While Bush's departure alone is cause for celebration, Obama appears committed to not just ending some of the worst policies of the previous administration, but to forge ahead with new and better policies.

A couple hours after the inauguration ceremony, I got a call on my cell phone from my eldest child Shanti from Bellingham, Wash., where she is a student in Western Washington University's community health program and serves as the assistant coordinator of the university's Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Alliance.

As someone who had been rather skeptical of Obama (and had voted for Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney in November), she was shedding tears of relief and amazement reading the new White House Web site's section on "Support for the LGBT Community." This often-critical observer of the political process was sharing her excitement as to how the United States now has an administration committed to supporting full civil unions, opposing bans on same-sex marriages, expanding adoption rights, promoting sex education and HIV-prevention efforts beyond the failed abstinence-only policies of the recent administration, as well as ending workplace discrimination for sexual orientation and gender identity.

This dramatic policy shift serves to illustrate the fact that, while many of Obama's policies will disappoint, frustrate and anger many of us in the progressive movement, we should not fail to recognize that there will be some fundamental differences in the policies of the federal government on many levels; that, given the power of the American presidency, even minor differences in policies can have a positive impact on millions of lives and that while there are certain institutional imperatives that will inevitably limit the degree to which even the most enlightened administration can bring about a shift in priorities, this does not obscure the fact that, in terms of public policy, we are witnessing the most dramatic change in American leadership since Franklin D. Roosevelt succeeded Herbert Hoover in 1933.

Tuesday evening, I joined hundreds of veteran activists gathered in the Smithsonian Postal Museum for the Inaugural Peace Ball. Hanging out in gowns and tuxedos with such progressive luminaries as Amy Goodman, Holly Near, Michael Lerner, Medea Benjamin, Harry Belafonte, Kevin Danaher, John Cavanaugh and others, there was a clear sense that it was a time to celebrate a historic achievement. It was remarkable to be among so many people well to the left of the Democratic Party -- and, in many cases, to the left of me -- who were nevertheless incredibly excited at what has transpired.

Obama's centrist proclivities notwithstanding, his message has been clear from the beginning: "It's not about me," he said again and again, "it's about you." As someone whose political rise in Chicago came not from the slimy politics of that city's political machine but from his grassroots constituency who got to know him as a community organizer, he recognizes where real power comes from. And there is no question that his political base nationally is to his left -- at least as articulated in many of the positions he took as a presidential candidate -- and that he will therefore need to be responsive to that base.

Goodman recalled the story from a small fundraising event in New Jersey for Obama about a year ago, at which a supporter expressed her concern with the longstanding U.S. support for Israel's occupation policies, an issue in which even the majority of liberal Democrats have tended to align themselves with the Republican right.

Given the unwillingness of successive administrations of either party to push for a viable peace settlement, the activist asked if she could expect anything better under an Obama administration. Obama responded with a story about A. Philip Randolph, the civil rights activist and union organizer who founded the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters. At a meeting with Roosevelt, early in his administration, about the possibility of adopting a policy that would grant the largely African American porters rights under federal law, the president replied that he had been convinced by Randolph of the legitimacy of pushing for such legislation, but that he needed a constituency that would make him do it. A constituency was indeed mobilized, and the Railway Labor Act came into law in 1934.

This is the challenge Obama is putting before us. From Palestine to the environment to almost every other issue, we must not simply wait and hope for Obama to do the right thing and then complain bitterly if he does not, but organize massively and effectively enough to give him no other choice but to adopt a progressive agenda. History has shown us that, with a few conscientious exceptions, Democratic leaders will rarely actually lead, but they are far more willing than Republicans to respond to grassroots demand for change. No one recognizes this more than Barack Obama, now the president of the United States.

Perhaps the most important power the president possesses in American politics is the power to set the agenda. No president, not even Ronald Reagan, has had as much power of persuasion as does President Obama. No president in the past four decades has come to office with such a sizable majority in Congress. No president since Roosevelt has been faced with so many serious crises that he could get away with launching ambitious new programs and dramatic shifts in policies. No president has come to office with so much popular support and with such a large, passionate and well-organized base of supporters.

In short, Obama has the ability to do a lot of good as long as we reject the temptation of feeling hopeless and cynical and as long as we recommit ourselves to organize and work for change.

So, let's dare to hope. Let's work to make change possible. We have never had a better opportunity.

Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics and chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco and serves as a senior policy analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Henry Ruark January 24, 2009 8:06 am (Pacific time)

Stephen et al: In my last, my ref. to human birth cycle was --yes---meant to point up probable rape carried out vs whole nation by neocon cabal. If indirect and not obvious, this should cure that flaw. IF you wish demonstration of moreofsame now projected here by techniques tied to paid-shill production, it is not hard to find some. Do not be further confused; if need arises for serious rebut for what some perpetrate here, simply ID self to Editor and I will share from LMA resources.

Henry Ruark January 23, 2009 7:50 pm (Pacific time)

Stephen: Your ref. is to Bretton Woods conference, where World Bank, IMF, others were set up to stabilize development especially in emerging nations. DO appreciate your obvious cogitation and concern; but keep TV on, careful choice of widely available worthwhile rational, reasonable and proven-source materials far too essential to miss. Re world domination by ANY such group as you refer to allatime, probabilities and common sense, plus much experience and long history, show it is practically impossible. Sites such as the one you link are bonanzas for some who will write anything so long as piper who wishes tune will pay them to compose it...as I know from experience with some few clients seeking precisely that kind of work. Did I do any ? Not to my knowledge. Keep digging, and be much more demanding of solid proof far beyond anything cited here so far. Even Britain, in its greatest glory as empire-builder, was unable to even come fairly close... Re Obama, hang on for at least nine months, fair interval since it is human birth-cycle, which somehow seems to fit the situation here now.

stephen January 23, 2009 5:19 pm (Pacific time)

ok..some crazy talk here..I have five minutes before chores. The elite, are very racist. They especially do not like black people. In my humble opinion, Obama is being set up for failure, to not only get the elites agenda through with his charm, intelligence, and hope and change, but to show the world that black people can not lead when all falls apart, so that when it does, the elite get two wins. People will beg for the new world order agenda because of the collapse, and it was a black person who caused it. It is sick, yes, but I have seen them do much worse. I happen to like black people, and this disgusts me. Ok, I know, Stephen is crazy, and I understand. But just keep this post in the furthest part of your mind, and in a month, 2 months, maybe 12 months at most, maybe it will come back to you. I have researched and studied the elite for many years. I know what they do. Rockefellers, Rothchilds, etc. They have been around for centuries, and they crave power and world domination. The media notes billionaires? These guys are trillionaires and have been around for centuries. Look it up. And keep notice. Rockefellers banks are doing well, and Israel's economy is fine. connect the dots. Then go back and look who owns the media, and how much money congress accepts from the zionists. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is an agenda. What they hate the most is Christians, and the Constitution. They have pretty much dismantled both, but overall, they will NOT win. But it wont be obama who saves us, it will be the patriots.

stephen January 23, 2009 4:52 pm (Pacific time)

Henry..I have your name, I have your background..doesnt mean a thing except the words that you express. I just wrote to Colleen on another article here. I dont know her, but I think she does well with words. I dont need to know her, or her background. Anyway, your last post has much truth. In fact, total truth. But it goes beyond that. It goes even beyond the federal reserve act of 1913. But yes, between 1913, and the brittenwoods of 1971, these are the issues that involve our current crisis. I keep telling myself to quit blogging, then here I go again. Addictive personality? feeling bad for people who dont see the truth? Maybe a bit of both. I cant explain in short things I have researched for so many years. But, I will leave you with this. Obama is not stupid, nor is he ignorant. He is very intelligent, well spoken, and charming. That is why the elite and their agenda to dominate the world picked him to be president. obama has NO control over the economy or the wars. He does what he is told. Until people understand this, I am not too sure what to say. The evidence is overwhelming, if people turn off the tv and use some imaginative thinking in their research. Go to a search engine, type in "new world order" there is plenty. but that would mean people would have to turn off their tv, and now that the government provided HDTV, that would be difficult. I know salem-news kinda frowns on links for videos and such, so I try to keep them miniumum, but this one crossed my desk today and thought it was worth sharing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1R8vRB-qeUandeurl=http://www.infowars.com/?p=7310 In closing: I think this is the best website in Oregon.

Henry Ruark January 23, 2009 8:55 am (Pacific time)

Say-W: You wrote:"the economic collapse that Obama is certain to create with his horrifyingly stupid lack of understanding." Where've you been for past 30 years, sir ? Cause of current economic crisis now overwhelming consensus among economists of all stripes --simply result of neocon policies beginning in Reagan era. History clearly now clinches that diagnosis, as more/more surfaces re Reagan regime, with startling ties via Iraq\Contra to many impacts now apparent. IF you can substantiate remark please do so with other source than your own misinformed feelings. We seek to learn from each other here, if you have the stuff let's see it.

SayWhat? January 22, 2009 9:49 pm (Pacific time)

Shed tears? For what? Sure, there's sorrow for the millions of Americans who will suffer, who will find every shred of dignity taken, because of the economic collapse that Obama is certain to create with his horrifyingly stupid lack of understanding.

Other than that, Obama offers nothing. Whatever you think "change" is, is purely your imagination projected onto a blank space Obama never filled during the campaign.

Henry Ruark January 22, 2009 8:14 pm (Pacific time)

Friend Stephen: Emphasis is meant to be on WHO is telling the story, since that determines credibility on HOW they tell WHAT, with the WHY coming from the WHO. Makes a difference on story whether it is priest or thief, and you know which. Single-name here minor convenience for rapid comment; only when WHO-status and credibility-demanded is more needed. First criterion for any trust is that you know the person involved...same for any believable honest, open, democratic dialog here. When ID denied, invariably there is reason, almost always because if known-whom,it makes meaning much different than might be otherwise.

stephen January 22, 2009 6:40 pm (Pacific time)

ending my evening, but I read back on my posts. I was very clear. I was kind, and I gave good research facts if someone wanted to research. In my opinion, Henry is getting more like I was, and I am getting more like Henry was. The reason for this? Henry is losing his insight from hope and change, and I am growing from reality. Dont lose your Constitutional values Henry, dont lose the genetic blood that flows from your veins for a hope and change person. Keep focus. your friend (even is we do disagree time to time) stephen

stephen January 22, 2009 6:19 pm (Pacific time)

sorry for forgetting my name on previous Henry. Giving names, phone numbers addresses or whatever really doesnt seem to make a difference to me tho. Its about ideas and sharing them. I could care less what your name is, or your background, not sure why that is so important to you. I do not like mainstream media. Not lou dobbs, not glenn beck, nor CNN.. they dont tell the truth. My point was, (sorry you didnt get it), that if the mainstream media is saying what I have been saying for years, means something important. They have been denying it for decades. So this was interesting to me. Even THEY are admitting it now. Something is changing, and not sure what it is. About approval ratings? yeesh Henry give me a break? 100 million people are addicted to American Idol If I were to ask the common voter who is in obamas cabinet, they would not have a clue. If I asked them who is winning on American Idol, they would know the name. And keep in mind...both stalin and hitler had HUGE approval ratings. Something to think about. Check polls on 911 was an inside job. It is at 80% that the gov is not telling the truth. hitler and stalin had the same approval ratings as obama. In fact, I am seeing history repeat itself. In my blogs, ALL I am finding in rebuttal, is, that obama has the most support. Thats it. NOTHING more. Well, check the gun sales and the ammunition sales.. Check the gold and silver sales! The people who dont watch american idol seem to think different. I think you might be misled from the american idol fans that are hopeless.

stephen January 22, 2009 6:02 pm (Pacific time)

I made a mistake too by forgetting to post my name. So we are even Tim. :-) Anyway, for those interested, just go to youtube, and on the search bar type in "ron paul glen beck" and look for the latest. Sept 20, 2009. In fact, if you do, check out the other related videos that go back a long time. Good track records are important to me. You will also see Peter Schiff (Ron Pauls"s economic advisor) videos. Also search "Peter Schiff was right" My utmost apologies, I know that this hope thing is helping many thru hard times, but it is something that will make things worse later. Thanks Tim for your note. on another note: go to statesmanjournal.com and find the link about volunteers counting the homeless. I am going to volunteer. This will help give money. I was doing this stuff while obama was chasing girls in college. Let me also add, the article was on the SJ for 8 hours, and I was the first one to call after 8 hours. While the blogs call to support obama and his help crap, I was the only one to call and volunteer, the person who took my phone call told me so. what a wake up call I just experienced. It will become mandatory, and when it does, well, disaster.

Henry Ruark January 22, 2009 5:36 pm (Pacific time)

To all: You pays your plugged nickel, and takes your choice. Here you have it, hard and straight. First you get Zunes, informed,articulate, eye witness, noted for critical approach to President Obama. You can read for yourselves. Then you get January,obviously also "Anon", with links to the likes of Beck, Dobbs, Kissinger and Paul. All are on record for doubly negative approach to the possibilities and probabilities now in our hands to help create, and none have ever given solid evidence of the controversial conspiratorial actions demanded for any sense to the rest of this. SO: Take your choice, but first consider the rational, reasonable characteristics of each source-here, and also of those named (Beck, Dobbs, Henry K. of international notoriety). "Wit, wisdom, will of the American people? ONLY if exercised in not only choices such as here, but in action to make sure President Obama gets the widespread, open, honest and democratic support he so surely deserves. One telling phrase from Zunes report says it all: "...he won decisively and is entering office with a 78 percent approval rating, the highest ever recorded for an incoming president." THAT spells overwhelming size of mandate, thus opening the door for our further action in guiding him and a new Congress to act as we see fit to force by the same muscle already demonstrated in our "transformative election".

January 22, 2009 10:29 am (Pacific time)

Editor: Our system stripped the link out, I will add it if you email it to the newsroom, sorry: tim@salem-news.com

Anonymous January 22, 2009 10:29 am (Pacific time)

Hate to say this, but we are way beyond words such as change and hope.. For a very long time now, I have been saying the financial collapse was orchestrated to bring in a world bank and world government. The only way the U.S would accept it, by fraud and trickery. Now, since it has come out anyway, even the mainstream news is admitting it. glen beck, lou dobbs are just a few admitting it. Why are they admitting it? Because most of us in the know already know it, and its too late to stop it anyway. The big boys dont care who knows it anymore, they are even saying it themselves. Henry Kissinger to name just one. Crazy.. I have known about this for quite some time, but actually seeing it right in front of my eyes is a bit surreal. I would be fibbing if I said I wasnt a bit nervous to say the least. In this link below, look at the "quote" glen beck uses..the same one I have been posting here. Pay close attention to it, its true. (not a beck fan) And we all know obama supports the banks. Its here folks, and I find NO consulation in saying told ya so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBaSBkp6JTwandeurl=http://www.dailypaul.com/node/79900 also: view www.infowars.com once in awhile. Im sorry, I really dont want to debate an article such as this article with such nice things to say, but I have to take what I know and share it. We already are tilling up our front/back yard preparing to plant food. My kids are asking the neighbors if they want the same, for a small fee. Hard work is what I have been doing all my life. I simply cannot support someone who supports the banks, and does not tell the truth about them. .

[Return to Top]