Building a World House: A Critical Reflection of a Clinton Rally and American Political Process

On Friday, February 29, 2008, I attended a rally for Senator Hillary Clinton where former President Clinton was the guest speaker. As usual, he was impressive. He outlined Senator Clinton’s positions on health care, education, the war, and her fundamental political philosophy of change and experience. Former President Clinton’s engaging personality and sense of humor also came to the fore when he sought to distinguish his wife’s platform from that of Senators Obama and McCain. However, with all of this said, I walked out of Malabar Middle School and drove out of my hometown of Mansfield with a nasty taste in my mouth.

One would think that one could participate in the political process without harassment from those with whom one may disagree. Is that not what American democracy is supposed to be about? Well, if one had to gauge the prospects of our democratic republic by the treatment I received from a couple of Senator Clinton’s supporters, then I would conclude that it is in dire straits. Yes, I am a critical supporter of Senator Obama (My reasons are forthcoming in another piece.). But, I am not anti-Hillary Clinton. I do not believe in a system of zero-sum politics that say I have to dislike another person because I support someone else. I actually have the utmost respect for the Clinton family, and some people could even point to moments when I have emphatically defended them. And as much as I critically support Senator Obama, I support participatory democracy MORE. I support critical participation over blind faith. I believe it is always important to seek to understand alternative points of view. This is why I accepted my friend’s invitation to attend the rally. Yes, I just happened to be wearing my old and disintegrating Obama for Illinois t-shirt, sticker, and pin, but I was not trying to stir the jug by any means. Yet, despite my intentions, a couple of people thought otherwise. After returning from a restroom break and a brief chat with the local superintendent, one of the volunteers for Sen. Clinton’s campaign tried to block my reentry. Even after trying to let her know that I had entered once before, she insisted that I could not reenter unless I filled out another form soliciting assistance for Sen. Clinton’s campaign. Luckily, one of the volunteers that I worked with during the Kerry campaign intervened and confirmed my prior entrance.

After President Clinton’s talk I sought to visit with some acquaintances. While I was speaking to one of my friends, who happens to be a local reporter, an older woman stopped and glared at me after she noticed my pin. Out of nowhere she asked in a rude tone, “What are you doing here? What are you doing here?” After I asked her what she meant, she pointed to my pin and pretty much expressed that my presence was unwelcome. Once I reminded her that we practice a democratic form of government where I could exercise my right to free speech and disagreement, she began questioning me about Senator Obama’s middle name. I replied that Hussein was a Muslim name. Then I tried to explain that people were trying to emphasize his middle name in order to scare them away from supporting him. I also said that she should not be concerned with that, she should be concerned with “racists”—which was a bad choice of words on my part—who seek to capitalize on other’s intolerance and fears. After saying this, she denounced me as being “racist” and a “confused” voter. And her denouncement came after she told me that she “did not want a Muslim in the White House.” But, I’m racist?

I was astounded and irritated to say the least. I could not believe she would make this accusation, especially since I was trying to explain the situation. I could not believe that in a country that professes to be democratic and ready for “change” that some individuals would take it upon themselves to exert what little privilege they had to make a point. I thought this was the reason why black and white individuals marched during the 1960s? What else is a shame is that it is very possible that her parents and grandparents could have had a terrible time trying to exercise their own electoral rights because they were people of color. Who would have thought that is what the legacy of fighting, marching, and dying for freedom rights in the 20th century would be?

When I originally sat down to write this, I planned on penning an unfavorable piece on Richland County’s Ohio for Hillary Campaign, however, it would not be fair to my friends who support Senator Clinton, nor to the majority of volunteers who may have thought something, but were mature enough not to express anything. As I wrote earlier, I am not a blind supporter of anything or anyone. I do feel, however, that individual and group participation in the political process is paramount. While today reminded me not to take the free democratic process for granted, it also reminded me how much we need to fix the political process. No one should blindly follow any candidate. Not one! Granted, people fought, marched, sacrificed, and died for one to vote any which way they choose. However, we should take stock in the moment and seek to understand the policies of each and every candidate. We should stay away from zero-sum politics which states that if we support someone, or a set of policies, we automatically disregard others. Sometimes the most radical thing to do is to work together in spite of disagreements. Sometimes the most radical tactic is to listen instead of trying to impose one’s (perceived) political will. While many may approach politics as if it were a contact sport where we seek to tear down opponents, we should instead approach politics as if we were building an elaborate house. All people who want to participate are welcome. All skill-sets should be encouraged. Each person can help set the foundation, build the exterior, interior, as well as laying the roof. Only then will a majority of people feel like stakeholders in the process.

Of course people will dismiss my plea for positive political participation over cynical engagement (which people of every campaign are guilty) as probably more utopian than Senator Obama’s call to transcend differences. This is not a call for political softness either. There is always space for “strength,” fearlessness, courage, and ideological self-defense. But we should not ever make room for narrow-mindedness and disrespect in our political discourse. And if any member of any campaign wants to take this personal, then do so. Maybe then we will have dialogue about our approach. It is fine if this is seen as an idealistic plea. Because I am sure that there are people, not just in this country, but the world, who seek to build a 21^st century version of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s conception of the “World House.” In 1967, Dr. King warned that if people of different races, religions, classes, gender and sexual identities, and beliefs did not learn to live together, they would “perish together as fools.” This vision of political participation and global human evolution is as important now as ever before. This moment in time is larger than a “maverick,” “change-agent,” or an “embodiment of change.” It is not about the outcome. The ways in which we participate will ultimately determine how we are judged. If we do not seek innovations in how we participate and relate to one another, then it does not matter who wins the Presidency—Senator Clinton, McCain, or Obama—we will only remain a shaky edifice that could eventually implode, leaving other nations and groups of people to suffocate in the rubble. Could we be so selfish?