TheGibsonReport.today.com

Now that Barack Obama is an historical phenomenon… we can critically examine how he succeeded in re-constructing “identity” in the public square. The story is not about what happened to get him to the presidency BUT how he successfully changed the subjective and collective meanings of millions by creating a newly identified category - US!

The “us” is back in the USA!

When President Obama ended his oath on January 20, 2009 with the words… “So help me God” it was clear that he was the leader the nation needed for “the raging time.” Like children who can only mature when they move beyond a focus on “self,” God has given the World, the global village… an inspiring leader who is capable of getting the “me generation” to finally move on. Not surprisingly, consumerism itself is based on a “me-thinking” philosphy: it’s the individual that matters. In that kind of environment, we are definitely not the change we have been waiting for. In fact, the economic and political types of “me-thinking” are not compatabile with change; the status quo works.

But then the market failed in 2008! And, contrary to appearance, it did not happen suddenly. The footprint of economic collapse can be traced back to the mid-1980s, the Reagan administration, when political rhetoric and actions emphasized the deregulation of industry after industry. The removal or loosening of regulations provided an environment for less oversight. The “raging” financial storm grew stronger over the decades as individual greed kept feeding it.

Lots of individuals who believe in fiscal responsibility, smaller government, the status quo, and individualism… successfully maintain a political identity that depends more on a “me,” than an “us” philosophy. To argue, for example, that you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps assumes two things: (1) you have bootstraps and (2) you don’t need solidarity or help from others. The economic marketplace philosophy does not recognize the concept of community. Economists, for instance, focus on firms, not human beings who might not move in predictable or “estimated” ways.

Barack Obama changed the language. He directed attention to what had been excluded. The candidate stirred the public imagination by bringing more of “us” into the big picture. The language of HOPE and CHANGE ultimately results in political realignment when people no longer hold “blind allegiance to the competitive market.”

President Obama’s job has been to get more of “us” to see that we must take responsibility for the impact of whatever politics we practice. Who wins and who loses when we embrace selfishness and materialism as a society? To base health care on who has the resources to purchase it, is in essence, the same as letting the marketplace decide who lives and who dies. But while we don’t have a market mechanism to stop the growing disparities, we do have, as Barack Obama is teaching us, politics to enforce change. We have already witnessed the ethos of selfishness from those who have preached the loudest about a need for responsibility - conservatives.

President Obama’s conceptual task has been cut out for him. He’s had to bring back in what has been taken out or excluded (the sanctity of human beings, a spirit of community, the natural status of individuals helping individuals) and weave a new narrative around it - “Yes, we can!”

Thus, “we” have become the epistemological other; the unspoken, hidden and repressed social concept in corporate marketplace thinking. That is to say the president is helping us to reconnect to ourselves by moving the narrative away from “I” to “us.” By analyzing the process by which meanings are changed, my research focuses on the politics of identity. Words matter! If we are seeking a morally centered universe, then our stories and focus must change.

What makes Barack Obama’s leadership so different and inspiring, is that he gets that he is educating for change. But he is not teaching subjects, he’s teaching us how to think and redefine who we are. He’s teaching a different vision about community and connectedness with words like “unity.”

President Obama does not say, “I am the change,” the truth, or the light. His revitalized concept of power generates a new way of thinking that is inclusive. The Obama rhetoric makes it clear that the day of top-down power is over. Power to the people, too!

What the president has done, then, in creating a new conceptual landscape is to get us to recognize each other and the best in ourselves.

Instead of the human spirit shrinking, now thanks to the election of Barack Hussein Obama, we have a new identity in the 21st century that’s being changed by the language we used. The buzz in the air at the inauguration for the 44th president was about more than people being ready for change. People were excitied because they felt engaged. You could see it in their eyes. You could feel it in their voices and patience as they moved along with a million other individuals. They obviously got that we’re all part of a social movement that’s promising a new level of caring and results.

So the buzz of empowerment is growing as political rhetoric shifts to talks about improving the common good and serving others.

The new president has set the tone and challenged once dominant discourses. By reinterpreting the situation, Barack Obama is creating a different identify for us and the world.

CHANGE changes things!

Regardless of your political affilation there’s a narrative that frames your position. So a key question is - how did you learn to be a Republican/Democrat? Where did your political beliefs come from? More to the point, how do you know you are what you say your are?

Well, I asked a relative of mine who is a Black Republican and a friend of mine who is a White Republican - What is a Republican? My relative said, “I’m a Republican because I’m a conservative.” My friend said, “I’m a Republican because I believe in fiscal responsibility.” And, I said, of course, to each - “But how do you know you’re not a Democrat?”

So how do you know a Republican or a Democrat when you see one? Listen closely to the rhetoric either uses when telling stories about what needs to be done for America.

Senator Barack Obama, a Democrat is on the “left” side of the political spectrum because he doesn’t believe that the marketplace is the sole solution to problems in our society.

Senator John McCain is on the “right” side of the political spectrum because he believes that the marketplace is the answer to problems in our society.

This means that you can expect to hear rhetoric about government being too big and too meddling from Republicans.

When Senator Obama says some of the wealth needs to be redistributed so some of the wealth can be spread around, a typical Republican reaction is - “No, the focus should be on creating wealth not sharing it.”

In other words, inequality works for a Republican BUT the ideal of equality works for a Democrat.

What other words or stories have you heard that show the difference between the two political positions.  AND finally… what’s wrong with socialism? Is it really the opposite of capitalism?

It may just be that too often we’re mixing our metaphors. That is to say we’re taking political positions for economic matters or economic positions on political matters.

Here’s a place to share how you know you’re a Republican/Democrat? Let the stories begin…

It’s time to get the “politics” out of health coverage for the poor and uninsured. According to The Washington Post (07-19-07), a bipartisan Senate proposal to boost the State Children’s Health Insurance Program by seven billion dollars a year for five years got a thumbs down from President Bush on July 18, 2007.

Right now the 10-year old program is costing the federal governent $5 billion a year. But the president says the 6.6 million kids whose families can’t afford private insurance don’t need that much of a boost. The president proposes, instead, boosting the program only $1 billion a year for the next five years. Why so little? The president says he doesn’t want an additional 3.3 million children added to the program which the additional funds would cover… for one important reason: the insurance industry would suffer.

Specifically, the president told The Washington Post this - “My concern is that when you expand eligbility… you’re really beginning to open up an avenue for people to switch from private insurance to the government.”

Now that’s an old and familiar argument often served up by economists who argue that freeloaders will come out of the woodwork. This woodwork theory is an effectively protective device for maintaining the status quo. And that is, after all, the conservative way of life, isn’t it? Conservatives want to conserve or keep things as they are. BUT… should the children suffer?

The president is quoted as saying he is not going to “surrender a good and important idea before the debate really gets started.” Yet, the paradox is that expanded funding for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program is supported by both Republicans and Democrats, at the same time that the leader of the Republican Party does not.

So when President Bush says no deal on a health plan for poorer kids because of what he calls “philosophical” differences… he is clearly putting politics before the health needs of children. He is, in effect, saying let the marketplace solve the problem. That means the president favors subsidizing private insurance companies which are then expected to subsidize health coverage for poor kids.

In other words… a conservative philosophy endorses the idea that the role of government should be minimize; marketplace solutions are the ideal…. even for health care. Sounds like the same philosophical argument for not embracing a national health care system. It’s time to forget the past! The real debate in the 21st century is not likely to begin until citizens arm themselves with knowledge and begin to understand the economic politics driving the health care debate.

Bottom line… What is in the best or common interest of the general public? Health care for all, health care only for those who can purchase it from private insurance companies or be subsidized with the purchase of policies at lower rates?

We should not accept at face value the president’s contention that expanding health coverage for poor kids will pave the way for “people to switch from private insurance.” An informed citizentry needs to ask the following questions: Under what conditions will that happen? What would prompt people who already can’t afford private insurance for their children to switch from the private insurance they already don’t have?

The president’s threat to veto compromised funding bills in the senate and house before the congressional recess in August… deserves a national debate.

Now is the time to speak out and remind legislators and the president of the public interest in the health care needs of non-insured children.

The money that could be used for enhancing education for DC Public School students is going into salaries for top administrators… thanks to Mayor Fenty.  He’s pushing the City Council to pay the new chancellor and the new head of facilities more than $275,000 each - nearly $100,000 more than ever paid to any school administrator in the history of the school system.  What we’re talking about here is POLITICS!!!  Politics forced the mayor’s hand to fill the chancellor position with someone endorsed by the White House and other political insiders.  BUT… as one who has taught in the DC Public School System, let me tell you, what is needed is not better paid administrators as the mayor thinks or better teachers, as the chancellor’s believes… BUT a reduction of bureaucrats and administrators who get to age in place and persist in maintaining mediocrity downtown.  How else does one explain an urban school system in the 21st century using antiquated payroll, attendance, and other methods?  We all know that change is needed in the school system… but it is the approach to change that is suspect. The mayor’s great transformation is not grounded in research. Instead of demanding fact-finding or evidence, politicians at the city, state, and federal level have endorsed theories and the word of an enthusiastic mayo; there’s little evidence that the mayor and his chancellor appreciate how historically difficult change is because of entrenched insiders when they advocate that better teachers will turn the school system around.  WRONG!!! They blew a miracle by not bringing together both insiders and outsiders before the unprecedented take-over.   

I’m a student of the Larry Cuban school of thought and an innovative teacher award recipient, so I know the importance of change from the bottom up as well as the top down.

Without parental, community, teacher, and student involvement, there is a good chance the new chancellor is either going to become a firefighter - putting out fires - or the sister of the little boy who was always plugging up holes in the dam with his fingers.  Busy, yes! Successful? 

This may be a good time to define success or what progress is going to look like over the next few years.  This month the problem is getting the funds for band uniforms… what will the problem be next week or next month for the chancellor?  I can guarantee you that whatever it is, the chancellor is most likely to hear about it first from the media, rather than from her staff.  Unless, of course, she realizes the amount of re-education that is going to have to be done starting right now.  For $250,000 I and probably a few others can show her how…