Political Culture: We Said We Wanted a Revolution…

“Eighty percent of success in life is just showing up.” – Woody Allen

For a few years there – as George Bush “won” a pair of shady elections and then repeatedly defied the Constitution, the will of the people and any decent measure of common sense – Americans disenchanted or disgusted by his reign could be forgiven for wondering if some sort of coup might be required to remove the Republicans from power. Such a measure seemed unlikely, of course, and not just because violent overthrow is about as un-American as, say, torture. It’s worth noting that, in order to stage a coup, a large number of us would have needed to get our asses up off the sofa and take to the streets! Instead, we spent seven years watching dejectedly, furiously – but, for the most part, passively – as Bush and his minions screwed up every single thing they touched.

Election nightIn the end, however, electing Barack Obama and ending the Bush era didn’t require violence, or even civil disobedience. All it required was the force of our better ideas, the inspiration of a great young leader – and the resolve to stand steadfast against a stream of vitriol from politicians (and their dwindling core of followers) who couldn’t believe their house of malfeasance and misanthropy was at long last crumbling around them. American democracy finally proved capable of withstanding even Bush and the modern GOP – assuming, that is, that Bush and Dick Cheney actually vacate their residences on January 20.

We did stand with Obama this fall, and we did it in huge numbers. It’s been a big year for big crowds – big, peaceful crowds, fortunately. Since the beginning of this election cycle we’ve all marveled at the turnouts for Obama’s rallies, from 15,000 freezing souls at his announcement speech in February ’07 to a convention crowd of 90,000 in Denver, 100,000 in St. Louis, 200,000 in Berlin, and 250,000 in Chicago for his victory speech. Guesstimates of the turnout for his inauguration are already off the charts; officials are preparing for an onslaught of up to 4 million celebrants on the National Mall.

BerlinOf course, Obama’s big crowds were never a perfect measure of his qualities as a candidate. They certainly did bear witness to his charisma, and his strength as an orator. More than that, though, I believe they were a testament to Americans’ pent-up desire to express ourselves politically, to participate in the act of changing this country, simply by virtue of Showing Up. It was a spirit of urgency and, yes, patriotism that also led millions of us to click a button on the Internet and send Obama another $10 or $100 every couple of months, and led many thousands to volunteer in campaign offices, on the phone and around our neighborhoods.

I’ve been thinking about those crowds a lot lately – and not just because I’ve been weighing the question of whether or not to fly cross-country and join the revelers on the Mall. (I’m currently leaning against it, though if Clooney or Spielberg has a couple seats open on the Gulfstream I’m willing to rethink.) The real impetus has been my recent viewing of a wonderful documentary, The Singing Revolution, that is being readied for DVD release in early 2009. It recalls the people of Estonia’s inspiring efforts to keep their culture alive through decades of Soviet occupation and even genocide, and shows how they finally gained their independence without spilling a drop of blood – by expressing their national pride through song, and by simply Showing Up in large numbers, unarmed, to assert their right to freedom.

As a tiny nation with strategic access to the Baltic Sea, Estonia has struggled to maintain its unique culture through 800 years of invasions and occupations by Germans, Swedes, Danes, Poles and Russians; only twice during that entire period – between the World Wars, and since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 – has Estonia actually attained self-rule. The directors of The Singing Revolution, James and Maureen Tusty, use archival footage to explore the enduring political power of Estonia’s Laulupidu, or mass song festivals, which for 140 years have preserved long-threatened traditions by bringing hundreds of thousands of Estonians together for days of folk singing and cultural celebration.

A 1988 rally in EstoniaWhen the Soviets lowered the Iron Curtain following World War II, they brutally imposed Communism upon Estonia, collectivizing agriculture and industry and forcibly indoctrinating the citizenry with Russo-centric culture and pageantry. But Estonians continued to gather in the capital city of Tallinn for the song festivals – and as early as 1947 they snuck a nationalist anthem into the Laulupidu program amongst the Soviet dreck. In 1969 they closed a festival by singing the song repeatedly, in open defiance of Soviet orders to stop. By 1988, Estonians were taking advantage of Mikhail Gorbachev’s glasnost policies to push the envelope of patriotic expression through music, even dragging long-banned Estonian flags from their attics for the first time in five decades.

Eventually this “Singing Revolution” morphed into an actual independence movement, with the formation of political parties and escalating provocations of the Moscow government. Events came to a boil in 1991, during the military coup that ousted Gorbachev, as Russian tanks and soldiers descended upon Tallinn to quell the movement. The flashpoint of the incursion was a radio/TV tower, where tens of thousands of unarmed Estonian civilians gathered in minutes to face down a Russian brigade until, back in Moscow, Boris Yeltsin had dissolved the Soviet Union and the coup had collapsed.

To an American glowing with pride over the events of 2008, The Singing Revolution plays quite differently than it might have a couple years ago. I certainly wouldn’t want to stretch a comparison of Bush’s government with the Soviets past its point of malleability. What I’m referring to is the impulse of a people to get on their feet and challenge the status quo, to create change (at least in part) via the sheer force of their presence and their willingness to work for it. The Estonians, at least, had a long history of coming together to perpetuate their shared culture and values. Hopefully, now that millions of Americans have finally risen to our feet, we’ll stay upright and play an active role in accomplishing the vast work that remains.

The Singing Revolution offers many lessons – not least of which is an admonition to those who are currently on their feet in California, to keep their protests positive and nonviolent. Gays in my home state have every reason to be disappointed in their fellow citizens who voted to take away their existing right to marry, and furious with the individuals and groups (religious and otherwise) who funded the campaign of lies that helped Prop 8 pass. However, too many of the actions and words at their post-Election Day protests have aimed to punish and insult, not to change hearts and minds. Supporters of gay marriage – gay and straight alike – need to put our anger aside, at least in public, and begin showing our fellow Californians all the love and humanity they have chosen narrowly to reject.

A post-election Prop 8 protestThe arts – and music in particular – offer a powerful forum for doing just that. As California moves toward its inevitable next vote on gay marriage, it’s not difficult to imagine rallies that center on the singing of love songs – universal songs that reflect the yearning of all (well, most) people, and not just heterosexual ones, to connect with one another and find mates to share our lives. A massive rally of gays and straights, standing together and singing “Chapel of Love” at the top of our lungs – it just might work! Heaven knows we could change the hearts of 3 percent of the populace, and overturn a 52-48 margin…

Now that would be one revolution worth showing up for.

Pre-order The Singing Revolution DVD at Amazon.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Ted
    With Prop 8, it seems we'll know the outcome by June when the California State Supreme Court rules on the case.

    This documentary seems quite powerful, and, as your review makes clear, it's the power of people who can exert enormous influence over governments (even repressive regimes -- but only, it seems, when said regimes are on the decline) to change the status quo.
  • steve
    Glad to hear Clooney and Spielberg are joining the fight against global warming with their Gulfstream....
  • JonCummings
    Well, I was gonna mention carbon offsets for the trip, but that's just too far down the liberal-BS pipeline...
  • steve
    I really love the Estonia story Jon, great piece. But I have to call you to task (again) about your tendency to overstate - usually based on your anger and/or utter hate and contempt for Bush. You know as well as I do that he didn't "screw up every single thing he touched", and I've had you concede the point numerous times in previous posts. I like you because you have passion, and even after showing your passion and making obviously wrong statements, you do show honesty in the end.

    Look, take away the 'evil rich people' who make more than $250k a year (or however you define evil-rich) you and I know (but most in America do not know because they've been lied to), Bush gave tax cuts to every single person in America. Yes, even the poorest of the poor were given tax cuts. If you think that's a bad thing then fine - I don't. And Obama apparently feels the Bush tax cuts didn't go far enough as he wants to give them further tax cuts.

    Secondly, appointing two African -Americans as Secretary of State - one even a female - for the first time in history, is hardly a screw up. Say what you will about what Powell and Rice did, but Bush did appoint them, and if you don't give him credit for that you're just being more partisan than Obama's new chief of staff, who will surely bring us all together. And of course the NAACP would never give Bush credit for that, because their agenda is not to progress the cause of African Americans, it's to demonize Republicans and foment racial divide.

    Thirdly, Bush increased US aid to Africa by something like 56%. So remember, this is 56% more aid to Africa than what was given by our "first black President". Ha Ha, it's funny to type that. Did he exaggerate the #'s on the increase in aid? - yes. But he increased it hugely. Give the man some credit. And see the link below from a Progressive website that proceeds to lambaste the man for "only increasing aid to Africa 56%". But our first black President walked on roses according to the same site, while not giving enough to Africa.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
    http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2005/0627afri...
    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0628-06...

    Jon, I love ya, you have passion, you're a great writer, and your posts are always interesting and provocative. But you sometimes go overboard. You know deep down inside that President Bush isn't an evil person. He didn't purposely try to bring America down, and he didn't screw up "everything he touched". He's simply a President who made some very bad decisions, said some very stupid things, and - to give him some benefit of the doubt - had to deal with the worst disaster in modern American history 8 months into his term. Even you agree that taking the Taliban out of Afghanistan (despite what the great thinker Richard Gere would have done) was a good thing.

    Try to be just a wee-bit fair and give the man a little credit. After all, he only deserves a little credit, but don't take that away from him too.
  • Wait a minute. Wasn't that aid tied to the gag rule?

    Plus, we DIDN'T remove the Taliban from Afghanistan. It would great if we had -- and I think Bush could lean on that for his legacy, in spite of all the other mistakes. But alas, it hasn't happened.
  • steve
    You're wrong, we did remove the Taliban controlled government from Afghanistan. Do you think that was the wrong thing to do? Please, elaborate.

    And if you think it's so easy to remove the Taliban movement from Afghanistan (different than the Taliban controlled government), let's see how Obama is going do that.
  • You didn't say "Taliban-controlled government," Steve, and you know it. Have you seen a picture of an Afghani city? These people could care less about their "government" -- like every good political scientist, they know it's all local, and that's where the Taliban is still exerting force.

    And who said it was going to be EASY? I merely pointed out that you're giving Bush credit for something he hasn't done.
  • steve
    I didn't say it in my first comment - you're right - but that's what I meant and you know it. I've spent months in Afghanistan Jefito, so tread lightly here. Yes, you're right it is local. All I'm saying in the bigger picture is that folks who want to play the Bush = Devil game have to stop sometimes and say,"wait, taking out the Taliban government WAS the right thing to do". Were mistakes made afterwards? Of course. But I'm giving Bush credit for something he HAS done Jefito, which was take out the Taliban controlled government. In case you don't remember, in 2004 Hamid Karzai was elected president in a free and fair election. Over 70% of Afghans voted (better than our rates). For this Bush (and NATO) deserve credit.

    Bush is a horrible president, but even he did some things right.
  • JonCummings
    The one, single thing I'll give him a modicum of credit for is the AIDS initiative--but even in that previous post (when was that?) when we discussed this, we did talk about the stupidity of the abstinence-only provisions and the refusal to fully fund condom education & distribution. I won't argue with the assertion that throwing a huge amount of money at the AIDS effort was the right thing to do--and what a liberal argument it is that you're making, Steve!--but how many more people might the initiative have actually helped had it been done properly?

    As for Afghanistan, (again) as we've discussed before, I agree with Jeff--removing an extremist, terror-supporting government doesn't count as an achievement if you screw up the aftermath and let them get away to torment their people again. Sure, it's going to be difficult as hell to disable the Taliban "movement" now, because Obama basically will have to start from scratch! If Bush hadn't become entranced by that shiny new invasion over in Iraq, and had kept this focus on the Afghanistan offensive in 2002-03 ... ah, who am I kidding, he would have screwed it up anyway.

    I don't get the Powell/Rice reference, either. The appointments were "achievements" just because they were black? If Bush appointed Powell only to severely damage his reputation by forcing him to lie to the U.N. and ditch the Powell Doctrine in order to support the Iraq farce, what kind of achievement is that? And Condi Rice has been HORRIBLE. Bush could have appointed Rob and Fab from Milli Vanilli and gotten the same results, if the color of their skin was the standard for "achievement."

    And the net result of Bush's tax cuts, along with the rest of his economic policies, is the glorious nightmare we find ourselves in today. Woo-hoo! Tax cuts are only an "achievement" when they make sense, which even the 2001 tax cuts for the middle class were not (even as slim as they were, compared to the massive giveaway to rich people).

    For years, conservatives used to say to us "Bush Derangement Syndrome" types, "He can't be both stupid AND evil. So which is it?" After watching this administration for eight loooooong years--and as we've been reminded as he races for the gutter with deregulation during his last two months--I have to disagree with that premise. You certainly CAN be both evil and stupid.

    I'll take the admonishment about overstating (though I'm not sure I'll do anything about it, at least not til Bush is back on the ranch), and I'll certainly take the compliment on the passion. Thanks for that!
  • steve
    Well, to answer Jefito's question - yes, I've not only seen picture of cities in Afghanistan, I've been to them. I also helped build a girls school in Charikar. Now, the local people only seemed to want to learn a few English words, and those were mainly "Thank You". And I sat there accepting their thanks, which was hard to do. Me - I was there for somewhat selfish reasons - because helping out girls in Afghanistan and doing philanthropy made ME feel good. They shouldn't have been thanking me - they should have been thanking the Bush administration and NATO for backing his decision to overthrow the Taliban government. Could he have killed the Taliban movement as a whole afterwards? Based on my travels and knowledge of the situation - no. Because the movement retreated to the FATA in in Pakistan. And the Pakistani government has a vested interest in letting the Taliban movement survive there. Yes, it's a really dirty quagmire we're in there, and Obama is going to find out how easy it is to throw stones at Bush's policies from the outside, but how f-ed up the situation was BEFORE Bush and how it still is. And I wish him the best, but despite his bold election talk, he can't put troops into Pakistan. Oh how the liberals will love him then...

    But at least having an elected president in Karzai and girls legally allowed to go to school (even if the men in the Pashtun culture still sometimes throw acid at them) is a vast improvement. Simple fact. Again, Bush sucks, but give him a little credit and ease up on the blind hatred.

    As for Powell and Rice, I'm simply saying that no other president found that diversity was important enough to appoint an African American as the face of America to the rest of the world. Plain and simple. Our "first black President" had one African American in the White House, and that was the nice secretary (what was her name) who would open the door for Monica so Bubba could get his thingy taken care of - all the while he was conveniently forgetting to increase aid to Africa to give hope to blacks that they one day may indeed have the chance to hold a cabinet position in an American administration.

    And as for me making liberal arguments, yeah, I'm as independent as they come. I'm more liberal than you on the environment (again - please don't accept the ride on the private jet from the Hollywood hypocrites), and conservative on other things. I call that "thinking about each issue without bias to either brainwashed party".

    As for the compliment to you, keep the great articles coming. I'm looking forward to your attempts to honestly critique Obama's decisions. I'll be watching.
  • JonCummings
    Yeah, well, I'll see what I can do, but if you're coming to me looking for Obama-bashing you'll have to wait until he actually does something wrong...

    Though, while we're on the subject, I think that nominating Hillary for State is just asinine. The last week of leaks, rumors, petulance and navel-gazing has reminded me exactly why I opposed Hill for the presidency in the first place. You know she is perfectly qualified to do the job, but she brings with her so much baggage & nonsense that it's just not worth the effort.

    I have no issue with the other Clintonistas & establishment Dems Obama is bringing in -- Malcolm Gladwell made very good arguments to Rachel Maddow last night about why their experience is vital in these times -- but I think Obama would be far better served by NOT linking himself directly with the Clintons.
blog comments powered by Disqus