Why implementing change is harder than criticizng the status quo
05/24/2010

The May-June 2010 issue of Tikkun magazine includes an article by Sharon Welch cumbersomely titled, The Machiavellian Dilemma: Paradoxes and Perils of Democratic Governance.  In it she explains why implementing change is signficantly more difficult than criticizing the status quo.  Or, in other words, why we shouldn't give up on the Obama administration--or our own change efforts.  Significant change takes time.

While I'm as disappointed in Obama as the next progressive, Welch says:

It is a painful fact that caring passionately about justice—understanding thoroughly the contours and dynamics of oppression—does not mean that we are equally skilled in the task of coordinating and managing human and natural resources justly, creatively, and in a way that lasts for the future. As an activist, I have seen the impact of speaking truth to power: the inspiration and sense of identity evoked by clarion denunciations of injustice and faithful witness to ideals of justice and peace. As we take up the task of using power truthfully, however, we recognize that the work is not done when the protests are heard. Rather it is here, it is now, that another type of work begins.

…We may critique alone and we may even envision alone, but to implement that vision, to build on that critique, requires the cooperation of other people—other people to actually carry out the work on a daily basis, other people to judge, refine, and critique new systems and processes. And, as you may have noticed, other people tend to have different ideas—not only different ideas of how to meet shared goals, but possibly better ideas about the most fitting, concrete ways to administer health care or to support ecologically sustainable forms of energy production.

Over the past 18 months of the Obama administration, we’ve seen even embarrassingly modest change proposals fought ferociously at every door and alleyway.  I have joined the voices critical of Obama for watering down the change I was hoping for—even before coming to the bargaining table.  But Welch, quoting Machiavelli, in The Prince, explains:

It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly ...

So while the proponents of change may be understandably cautious, we must nevertheless continue to work to change the debate.  Here Welch draws from the memoirs of former Congressman Ronald Dellums (Laying Down with Lions), who recounts that he had to make a choice early on: was he going to be a “rhetorical activist” or “an effective legislator committed to securing social change through the process of governance?”

Dellums says he learned the importance of these principles early in his political career.  In a speech in Milwaukee in 1971, he referred to colleagues in the House of Representatives as “mediocre prima donnas ... with no real understanding of the pain and human misery being visited upon our people.” Back on the floor of the House, Rep. Wayne Hayes verified that the statement was accurate, and then asked Dellums, “I just wonder if you then want a bunch of mediocre prima donnas to pay more serious attention to your amendment?”

As Dellums states, “The lessons here were clear”:

I had not come to Congress to attack and alienate my colleagues; I had come to challenge their ideas. I needed to step back from the personal ... I had to return to the educative role that Dr. King had laid out in his challenge to leadership. I needed to become better informed, to understand my opponents and be able to best them in open debate. I had to bring them along with me, not demand that they reject themselves ... I could not be content with a role as the radical outsider if I wanted people to pay heed to our radical ideas. I needed to develop arguments that my fellow legislators could take home to their constituents and imagine articulating at their constituents' day meetings.

The highlights above are mine, obviously…indicating the points I most need to learn.  (I want the Teabaggers to reject themselves!  That’s pretty funny, but not very likely.)

A recent email from a New Orleanian who now works for the justly maligned MMS sheds some light on the complexities involved in a disaster like the BP Deepwater Horizon rig explosion:

Obama and his cabinet (like Secretary of the Interior Salazar) are making people angry because they pulled the five-year oil and gas lease-sale plan. Bush okayed it. Obama pulled it, reviewed it, and then issued a revised one a week before this damned spill.

If you'd read the two, you'd see a world of difference. O&G people aren't happy about the newly-opened areas. They wanted everything wide open, so they could bid for leases in the Federal waters, and then explore O&G. The revised plan does open some areas, but it makes many off-limits, like ANWAR, several areas in Alaska, and so on.

The revised plan and the related energy strategy do an about-face of the Bush-Cheney realm. The White House and the Feds do not determine arbitrarily where exploration can happen. The governors of the involved states must decide, too. So, you're going to see a big fight on Capitol Hill--it showed itself during some of last week's Senate hearings--because some senators don't want exploration in their backyards, but the governors do.

It was also the White House and Salazar who overruled the Kennedy faction and allowed a wind farm to proceed off the coast of MA. That fight had been going on a long time.

As for MMS, I've just been there two years, and I'm just a tech writer, so I don't have an in to what's going on, not in detail. But I read the reports and the media, and I know that some of the royalty people were involved in a huge scandal--during the Bush admin--and Salazar came in afterwards and cleaned house pretty good.

This spill has opened up new questions, some that point to regulations--which are approved by Congress, BTW--and some that suggest some MMS managers might have been more assured than they should have been that things were kosher. I really don't know. What I do know is that what Salazar has said is true: he's abolishing the MMS and creating 3 new bureaus among which the MMS’s tasks will be divided.  I do know that the associate director of offshore announced his retirement last week, and freaked everyone out. I do know that Salazar--before the spill--began demanding more rigorous environmental assessments.

It’s clear from her email that a lot goes on behind the headlines and five-second sound bites that most of us rely on for news.  And complexity is another brake on the pace of change.  Complexity muddies the water…clouding clear courses of action.  Complexity causes uncertainty and uncertainty alone can kill change.

So we who believe that humanity can and must do better must keep at it; keep working to change the conversation; to win hearts and minds.  Not simply with elections (as if there was anything simple about it!), but in the day-to-day struggle to uncover the facts, discern and speak the truth, and press for a more peaceful, sustainable, and just world.

Back to Blog  |  Post Reply  |  Email to a Friend