Take Us to Our Leader

The American "movement" sorely needs a leader--and an identity. What movement, you might ask? Well, that's exactly why it needs an identity. I refer to the energy of the hundreds of thousands of folks who marched last year against the Iraq war before it started, and the millions of others who surely must still share the protesters' frustrations and anger.

The war went on as scheduled, of course, but the dissatisfaction of many lingers, and on March 20, people will again take to the streets, this time to mark the one-year anniversary of the invasion. Marches and rallies are fine, but what is really needed is continuous pressure that only great numbers of people working in concert can provide. Regularly harnessing and focusing the immense human energy present at the protests could put great pressure on those in Washington to clean up their acts and start turning this country into the just America many of us still believe it can be, and the sooner, the better. Every day's reading of the newspaper, it seems, brings more distressing, infuriating news connected to the whole Iraq mess: more American and Iraqi deaths; more of the conflict’s ubiquitous "wounded" (a seriously deficient term for properly conveying the horrible, permanent, life-altering nature of so many of the injuries); a president who responds "So what's the difference?" when pressed by Diane Sawyer about the not-so-subtle distinction between Saddam Hussein actually possessing weapons of mass destruction versus wanting some; the transparent hypocrisy of noble talk about bringing democracy to Iraq while police state tactics designed to stifle constitutionally-guaranteed dissent are used on Americans in the streets of Sacramento (during the June 2003 Ministerial Conference and Expo), Miami (during the November 2003 Free Trade of the Americas summit), and elsewhere; the ability to capture Saddam Hussein in an area roughly the size of California juxtaposed with the weird inability to locate those responsible for outing CIA agent Valeria Plame in an area roughly the size of the White House, and so on. There are some days when I don't even want to pick up a paper for fear of being exposed to some new hideous revelation about how America is being pillaged in plain sight. As an American who loves his country, though, I can't afford not to know. But because the raping and looting of American principles (not to mention the treasury) is SO obvious, it's hard not to wonder where the anger is. I don't know how many conversations I've had with people at work, in espresso shops, in grocery store lines, that end with one of us asking, "Why aren't people up in arms? Where is the outrage?" Well, it's still there, and what is desperately needed is someone with the proper personality who can step forward to help unleash this pent-up fury and intelligently verbalize and direct it in a positive, productive way.

I attended several marches in San Francisco last year before the invasion of Iraq, and a couple after to protest "the occupation." They were sponsored, of course, by International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now To Stop War And End Racism). At attendant rally after rally, I listened to shrill harangues about Mumia Abu-Jamal's innocence, the rights of indigenous peoples everywhere, American military intervention in the Philippines, South Koreans' grievances against the U.S., etc. In a way, Bush gave us more credit than was due when he labeled protesters as a mere "focus group," for the message(s) could hardly have been more scattered.

I don't doubt the veracity of the arguments emanating from the stage. For one thing, I simply am not that well-informed regarding such a wide range of issues (perhaps I am unique in this regard compared to most demonstration participants, but I don’t think so). For another, I just assume there is much truth in what is said. And certainly one of the reasons I have taken to the streets is because I do see the interconnectedness of us all and how decisions made by our government result in a serious case of global trickle-over effect.

But, with rare exception, the speeches and speakers have a grinding sameness to them. They are angry and accusatory. Much (though not all) of the rhetoric sounds to be straight out of some 1970s radical handbook. Bless them for being so committed to their causes, but the diatribes are off-putting and, worse, muddle the message. I understand the anger--lord, do I understand it. But it does the movement (however it's defined) no good if the only purpose served by uncontrolled ranting is to drive people away. I appreciate the effort it took to coordinate the anti-war activities, but as far as formulating a cohesive message and leading the movement, A.N.S.W.E.R. is not the answer.

So then, if we are ever to have any true impact on our out-of-control president and lackey Congress, the first things we need to do are narrow and clarify our goal(s). Do we call only for an immediate end to Iraq's occupation? Do we demand that real American pressure be applied to solving the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, too? Or do we look more inward and press for the (admittedly highly unlikely) impeachment of Bush, or at least call loud and frequent attention to his administration's litany of distortions and doublespeak so that the scales finally fall from our fellow citizens' eyes? Once our mission is defined, we need an intelligent, well-spoken, thoughtful leader who can succinctly deliver the goods and lead us on and in some damn fine productive marches, boycotts, demonstrations, sit-ins, and good old-fashioned civil disobedience. In other words, we need someone who will inspire us, with words and deeds, to do whatever we must do to wrest our country back from the precipice near which it now wobbles. History has shown over and again how amazing things can happen when huge, pulsating throngs of energized people demand accountability from those in power and refuse to take no for an answer.

A glance at today's short list of candidates for movement speakership is not promising: Al Sharpton? Too controversial. Daniel Ellsberg? A true American hero, but Dan--get to the point already! Jesse Jackson? Ditto. Peter Camejo? His recent effort to help unseat Democratic Congressman Robert Matsui doesn't aid his credibility any. Ralph Nader? Smart guy. But his schedule appears to be full for the next few months.

Where are the Joans of Arc, Gandhis, or Kings when you need them? Granted, they don't come along too often, so we're willing to compromise. We're just looking for one good man or woman who, once we chop our cause down to two or three well-defined points, can let rip with pithy sound bites and catchy one-liners perfectly consumable for the three-second generation, all delivered with humor and charm, underlined by a serious earnestness, of course. This isn't said flippantly. A main reason television and radio talking heads are predominately right-wing is because their black-or-white, love-it-or-leave-it platitudes are perfectly suited for the instantly-gratified, on-the-go society in which we live. Shout it out, whether accurate or not (usually not), and move on--who has time to think? This approach differs greatly from the typical thought process of those on the left, who tend more to use critical thinking skills to arrive at some sort of rational conclusion, which is how serious topics and policies should be treated. The problem is, this process doesn't lend itself well to explanation by snippets. I’ve already noted how rants don't work; well, neither do long, drawn-out, often boring analyses. It would be essential for the movement's leader to understand the reality of today's harried American culture (populated by harried Americans) and mold our mission statements into zingy (but always truthful) morsels for those conditioned to receiving their "news" in little bits and pieces. Careful examination of the issues would still be performed, of course, but the conclusions would be given a little PR make-over before hitting the glare of the cameras.

This is not "selling out," nor is it bastardizing our principles. It's just facing the facts of the culture in which we live, and it's important to remember that what we're trying to do is not preach to the choir, but rather win new hearts and minds, many of which are used to hearing things explained in quick, easy-to-digest ways. The right has mastered and employed this technique for years now, from Rush Limbaugh to Bill O'Reilly, and as distasteful and oily as those two and their ilk may be, it's time to admit they've got us whipped in delivering the message. It doesn't mean that we also must climb into the sty and wallow around in the mud; not at all. What it does mean is that we need someone to lead us at beating the right at its own game, someone who is sharp enough to convey the truth (honestly, interestingly, quickly) and still avoid the glop.

We're only looking for an honest, credible, witty, smart, articulate, confident woman or man who can lead mountains of people who are ready to move mountains. That's not too much to ask, is it? Any takers?