It had been twelve years since
my wife and I had worked in a political campaign and attended a political
rally. To say that we had been burned out by the 2004 presidential campaign
would be a gross understatement with too many negative details to recount. One
thing that was learned, however, was how the rightward movement of the political,
economic, and social systems in the US had battered ideals.
But like the eternal optimist,
fueled by irrepressible ideals for a just society that meets the needs of all
its people, we joined yet another campaign after this long hiatus.
The use of phone banks in
presidential campaigns had changed. Cell phones make it more difficult to reach
potential voters, but newer dialing programs are better at reaching people on
voting lists. And rather than making calls from a centralized location, which is
always good for enhancing a sense of camaraderie with likeminded campaign
volunteers, calls can now be made from anywhere using a computer, smart phone,
or tablet. As long as expectations are high, and the phone lists are fairly
accurate, the chance of abusive responses to phone calls is minimized. The
latter was not so twelve years ago when hours spent calling lists of voters
felt much like how the late rounds of a prizefight must feel.
Canvassing homes is a more
risky proposition depending on the demographics of the canvassing assignment.
The area I canvassed was a rental area in far western Massachusetts. The list
of registered Democratic voters I had was small, but the majority of people
were not home on the Sunday afternoon of canvassing, and those people who were
home were hostile. I don’t know why the latter was so, but door-to-door
canvassing has never been a positive experience for me. I’ve never canvassed in
an economically “advantaged” area, so I have nothing with which to compare the
results from years of knocking on doors and talking with potential voters.
The highlight of the campaign
thus far was the huge rally at UMass Amherst on Monday, February 22 “Young and
old cheer Bernie Sanders at UMass Amherst,” (Boston Globe, February 22, 2016).
The serpentine line of Sanders’ supporters wound in a seemingly endless throng
of students from the many colleges and universities in central Massachusetts
and folks from nearby communities. A cold wind blew from the north, which made
waiting in line to enter the cavernous Mullins Center at UMass all the more
uncomfortable.
Once inside, the wait for
Sanders to appear seemed like it would last forever. Bands played, speeches of
local politicians and a union leader took up some of the time in the sports
complex. It was a welcome reprieve from the cold and wind outside the
arena.
When Sanders finally took the
stage, his speech electrified the crowd of about 8,000 supporters. He
eloquently and forcefully addressed the issues of how the political system was
at the beck and call of the interests of extreme wealth; student debt;
financing a college education; investing in schools and daycare; equal pay for
equivalent work of men and women; income inequality; the plight of the homeless
and veterans, those living on social security pensions, disability pensions,
and veterans benefits; the catastrophe of climate change; the decaying
infrastructure of the US; how the economy has failed to provide decent jobs for
millions of people; and how his adversary, former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton, could not possibly remain unaffected by the outpouring of massive
amounts of cash from Super PACs funding her campaign. He spoke of how Citizens
United had unleashed that money and how his campaign has relied on the
contributions of about 4 million small donors. It seemed as if the energy of
the powerful sound system in the complex had been transformed into the
electrifying response of the gathered thousands. I have not witnessed such a
response to a political message since Dustin Hoffman spoke at a rally for
Eugene McCarthy’s candidacy for president in August 1968 in Providence, Rhode
Island. And Sanders did not shirk in providing the specifics of where money
would come from to fund proposed programs. Offshore accounts of US businesses
would be taxed. A tax would be paid on investment transactions. The familiar
cry of the far right about “tax and spend,” would be replaced by progressive
taxation on wealth with those monies being put back into the economy for the
betterment of all people. Had so many years passed since it was possible to
give voice to the aspirations of average people who wanted to take back the
political, economic, and social system and make it work for ordinary people?
It felt as if Sanders was
giving voice to the lost ideal of a society worth living in after the feeling
of angst that is best voiced by Charles Dickens in David
Copperfield when his main character expresses how bereft of hope his life
has been.
Sanders has discussed his
differences with Hillary Clinton vis-à-vis the start of the Iraq War, but he
needs to talk honestly about how war has become such an accepted part of life
in the US, as endless wars continue almost without criticism.
I would have liked Sanders to
have addressed the link between those endless wars that the US is now involved
in and how the outlays for those wars has sapped the economy of necessary funds
with which to challenge the chasm of income inequality that now exists in the
US. But, I was not disappointed by what I did hear.
Howard Lisnoff is a freelance
writer.
No comments:
Post a Comment