Where I Was Not; Where I Am

It's been one week since my last post. This is an eternity in the life of any well-maintained blog, particularly one driven by an insistently visible presidential race.

I'm back to report that the absence is the message. I have very little to say about this campaign at the moment.

I didn't make it to any of the Brooklyn-based "Turn the Page in Iraq" canvasses on Saturday. I decided not to attend a Sunday open house celebrating the opening of Barack Obama's first official field office (not to be confused with the much written about finance office) in New York City. These were not incidental scheduling conflicts, but places I decided not to be. I'm going to attempt to explain why.

I sat down for coffee and an interview on Wednesday of this past week with Jacki Esposito, one of the organizers of Brooklyn for Barack, who is also one of the Obama campaign's designated field organizers in Brooklyn. We spoke for almost five hours.

I'm grateful to her for spending the time to have a conversation that I'm sure neither of us planned to extend into the marathon session it became. We identified many areas of difference in perception and priorities, but also made the effort to reach beyond those to find areas of common interest.

Her commitment is laudable. I have no doubt that she will follow her calling, as she understands it, through to the end of this race. There is a huge amount of work to be done on the ground, and she will be a significant contributor to getting the grassroots end of things done in Brooklyn, and perhaps beyond.

It's difficult to write more than this about our exchange. What I believe we affirmed in the last hour or so of our discussion was a mutual acknowledgment of sincerity of purpose with regard to Barack Obama. This is enough to persuade me to leave most of the substance of our disagreements about means, ends and the significance of electoral politics in the process of governance out of this post. Her views are not interchangeable with those of Barack Obama, nor are mine, and I've decided there's no need to frame the specifics of a personal political debate as campaign-related.

What I heard from her about the grassroots experience in Brooklyn is that it's challenging, but there's been adequate support and communication from the campaign throughout her involvement. She said that many of the people working at the grassroots level are relatively new to politics; people have been learning by doing, and she's confident the enthusiasm and man hours will have a significant impact on the race.

I hope so.

It's partially this hope for success that is tying my tongue and restricting my fingers at the moment. I have more questions and concerns than ever about the Obama campaign, but I'm in need of a new way to address them.

I am interested in better government. I'm committed to a more ethical society, as well as a more peaceful world.

I am an idealist to the extent that I nurture a beleaguered belief that these things are possible; I am also a pragmatist, grounded in the direct experience of complexity, bureaucracy and humanity's worst instincts. Balancing these two orientations requires a constant reevaluation of the world around me. Frankly, this is not an easy way to live, but it's the only path that I feel comfortable walking.

Which brings me back to the question of where I was not, and where I am now. I learned on Wednesday that I'm unlikely to find what I'm looking for among the grassroots graduates of Camp Obama or youthful front-line staffers. This is not to say that I may not work with them in the future, or that I discount what they're trying to accomplish and the effort that they're putting into the campaign.

There are, however, some things that I need answered in ways that organized volunteers and junior staff can't accommodate. They can't actually speak for the campaign or its decision-making, and asking them questions that they can only answer speculatively (with reluctance and seemingly at their peril) is not productive for them or for me.

I'm eager to push this conversation forward with more emphasis on persons of age and experience. I remain fascinated and hopeful when Ted Sorenson gets out and stumps for Barack Obama. To the extent that I remain engaged in the progress of this candidacy, I'll be looking for compelling historical and authoritative ethical perspectives on what's happening now.

I also want to communicate more about people who haven't made up their minds, or at least haven't hit the streets. Much of the truth of this moment lies outside those caught up in its nuances. I'm going to ask readers, friends and acquaintances, to consider submitting short statements about how 2008 looks to them, preferably with an emphasis on their personal thoughts about Barack Obama.

[If you happen to be reading this and get inspired to start writing, please send 500 words or less to thinkobama@gmail.com. My hope is to publish individual statements in their entirety, perhaps following up with posts about questions raised.]

More importantly, I'm returning again to the idea that change doesn't need to wait for any one person. It's not all about one model of community organizing, or one person to catalyze a nation. My allegiance lies with principles, not individuals.

I've spent much of the week feeling about like this: "A campaign's a campaign, and a movement's a movement. Call me when we have the latter."

It often seems that people aren't risking enough to be true in practice to the values that will actually change the country. Going half-way in any direction always strikes me as a good way to lose. The politics of compromise -- i.e., accepting "good enough for government work" -- extend way beyond the Beltway.

When I get disheartened, though, I go back to the well of bold minds from different times. Why wait for the right call to reach you when you can put one out, too?

Marshall Ganz is fine, but I'll go with Gandhi to end this post:

They say 'means are after all means.' I would say 'means are after all everything.' As the means so the end. There is no wall of separation between means and end. Indeed the Creator has given us control (and that too very limited) over means, none over the end. Realization of the goal is in exact proportion to that of the means. This is a proposition that admits of no exception.