Obama won. Why did it feel so anti-climactic?
As I simultaneously watched a station with a clear liberal bias and another with a clear conservative bias, screens came up stating Obama won the requisite number of electoral votes immediately at 8 PM PST. My glance at the screen in the midst of a discussion caused me to state evenly, "Hey, look. He won."
With that calm fact, every history book was outdated and needed a completely new section on the progression of racial issues. It hasn't hit me, and I don't think it will. For many of my generation, the racial issue doesn't matter. The fact that the country elected an intelligent idealist far outweighs the color of his skin.
The gloss of the victory wears off quickly. With the promises and goals he has stated, Obama's work has just begun. Implementation, the real challenge, looms overhead. Even with a Democratic majority, there will be intense battles. The Democratic party does not have a history of unity and teamwork.
The expectation of Democratic control to allow a drastic shift in American policy is unrealistic. The leadership shifted, and that might cause a fundamental change in operation. But, most of the same legislators that voted for attacking Saddam, the Patriot Act, FISA still hold their seats. Many of the members of Congress that appointed Roberts and Alito are still present.
To lay the responsibility of the government's actions over the past several years at the feet of an individual, an administration, or a party is ignorant. Legislation was passed and judges were confirmed, counting more than just Republicans among their numbers. Blaming Bush is a folly, one that ignores the individual responsibilities of all those involved from top to bottom in the democratic process. Our country does not operate only by simple majority, but by a simple majority with the complicity of a sizable minority. If there are actions that faulted, we are all at fault.
We have an individual responsibility to act. Someone I know once criticized the poor quality of public defenders in the United States. I asked him if he was going to change that and become a public defender. His reply was one of shock and disgust that I would even suggest such a thing. What use does the world have for people that simply identify a problem, doing nothing to resolve it?
Similarly, if a government acts in a manner with which people do not agree, there must be clear and immediate action against that action. Many people I know that lamented about the illegality of the war in Iraq or the violations of human and civil rights committed by the government. Yet, most did nothing but talk about the situation. They did not participate in rallies, write to their Congressional representatives, or even fund groups protesting these actions on legal and social fronts.
This strange attitude extends to many levels. Yet, many people ignore them. The change has to start with individuals. There can't be a casual relationship approaching these issues. The responsibility to act starts and ends with the individual, especially those with access to resources. There is no justification. There is only the excuse, the mask of apathy.
Sound esoteric? These events take place in every community. Homelessness, drug abuse, domestic violence - all of these issues need some resolution. Yet, people complain at time lost while helping the homeless while they protest against the people sleeping in doorways. People decry the effects of gang violence, but people don't stop buying marijuana or help fund and run drug abuse clinics. Domestic abuse is condemned, but few individuals become social works or public defenders. Few want to involve themselves with non-profits to fight to change society or the system that suppresses individuals that seek and/or need help. Why?
Part of the problem is liberal laziness. It is the comfortable situation where one knows that many others agree with a certain position, so there is no pressing need to act themselves. Someone else will do it. One of my friends pointed out that this applies to many more people than liberals. I agree to that point, but I think that progressive liberals need to take issue with this problem. They want change. It doesn't come by someone else acting. You don't see conservative groups sitting back on their laurels. Proposition 8 and Amendment 2 passed.
While even these problems may seem somewhat distant, take an issue that I am facing right now. A friend of mine (friend A) is torn between letting her friend (friend B) stay over the week of Thanksgiving because friend A fears that the friend B might distract her from studying that week for her law school finals. Friend B is homeless, living out of a car. The reason friend B want to stay over is to volunteer in the kitchens in the area during Thanksgiving. Friend A will also be gone during Thanksgiving to visit with her family and does occasionally volunteer in a homeless shelter.
To celebrate Thanksgiving by denying a homeless friend a couch to sleep on so that they can help feed the homeless contradicts every fiber of my nature. But when you realize the importance of first year law school grades and the cost of law school, the issue starts to enter a gray area for many people.
Why is there a gray area, in this situation or any other? Why is there a balancing interest that opposes the change you want to see in the world? The responsibility to act does not lie with anyone else but yourself. Ghandi said "Be the change you want to see in the world." Act or shut up.
