“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.

In 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.

Of 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. (more…)

I didn’t cry for an hour and a half. I watched dozens of other people weep and shout and wail and fling themselves to the floor with happiness; I watched pundits variously expound thoughtfully, babble incoherently and fumble for words before simply going mute. I did join my wife and kids in dancing with joy to a couple of my favorite – and now forever Obama-rific – songs:

George Michael – Freedom ’90 (live) (download)
Dixie Chicks – Truth No. 2 (download)

But it wasn’t until the close of Obama’s magnificent victory speech, after the pageantry and the big extended-family waveathon … it wasn’t until everyone else had left the stage, and Obama turned back and gave one last salute to the crowd, that I began weeping uncontrollably. A headache I had been nursing all day finally dissipated, and the tension I’d been carrying around for two months … for two years … for eight years, really, finally seemed to melt away.

It was at that moment I realized I couldn’t write the column I was planning for today – the one in which I suggested that after all the name-calling, the vilifying and the brutishness of this campaign, I didn’t feel sorry at all for the emotional pickle in which McCain’s most intemperate supporters must find themselves. Not because this problem doesn’t exist for them, but because Obama’s speech renewed my hope that even those folks will soon cool their jets.

“In this country,” he said, “we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let’s resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long … And while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress … As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, we are not enemies but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection … And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too.” (more…)

On Tuesday, citizens of California will have an opportunity to place our indelible stamp on the forward progress of civil rights in the United States. I’m not talking about the election of Barack Obama as president, though that certainly will result in dramatic and needed advances on all sorts of levels. Instead, I’m talking about Proposition 8, which if passed would amend the state’s constitution to add the simple, elegant, yet contemptible phrase, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

What’s the big deal here? you might ask. After all, voters in 26 states already have written such restrictions into their constitutions – why not California? The difference is this: On Tuesday, for the first time, a state’s voters will be going to the polls with the power to take an existing marriage right away from same-sex couples. That is, Californians will be deciding whether to tell more than 11,000 couples who have exchanged wedding vows since last May that their marriages are no longer legally valid. Each voter’s moral and ethical decision on Prop 8 will not be made in the abstract, as those decisions were in other states, but will have real and immediate consequences.

Whatever happened to “let no man put asunder”?

Unfortunately, no one knows exactly what those consequences will be. Will all those marriages be instantly annulled? Will all those couples have to wait in limbo through years of court challenges? California’s attorney general, Jerry Brown – yes, that Jerry Brown – has said he will argue in court that marriages already performed should not be annulled. But if 11,000 gay couples in the state continue to claim a basic right that has been stripped from millions of other citizens, what will “marriage” mean to anyone anymore? (more…)

Last week, Republicans half a world apart (in more ways than one) showed us the difference between rational, reasoned political thought and unthinking absolutism. In Israel, on the 60th anniversary of that nation’s founding, George W. Bush removed his drool cup just long enough to read a speech equating the diplomatic initiatives favored by Barack Obama with Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler in 1938. Meanwhile, in California, the Republican-appointed chief justice of the state’s Supreme Court used a close and nuanced reading of the state constitution to overcome his own reservations, and wound up serving as the swing vote in a 4-3 decision that overturned the state’s ban on marriage rights for gays and lesbians. That same day, governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, also a Republican, said he wouldn’t fight the ruling or support a constitutional amendment that would restore the ban.

This column isn’t about Iran or Obama, so let’s jettison that topic by noting that Bush, like that dope on “Hardball” last week, probably couldn’t pass a pop quiz about 1930s Europe, and almost certainly couldn’t tell you where the Sudetenland is. There is, however, a point to make about tossing around references to Hitler, particularly in Israel. (For Bush to have introduced Hitler into the U.S. presidential campaign in mid-May is like pulling out a “yo momma” insult too early while doin’ the dozens.) Nazi references are a surefire way to cut short a debate, rather than resolve it; they tend to eliminate the potential for rational disagreement, and lead to bouts of outraged name-calling, as we saw last week.

I bring this up because the debate over gay marriage too often begins and ends with this sort of name-calling. Proponents of gay rights are viewed by conservative Christians as “sodomites” who are acting “against God’s will” and are surely “doomed to hellfire.” Opponents of gay marriage are “bigots” who are “on the wrong side of history” and will someday find themselves “in the dustbin of history with Bull Connor” – and even, yes, Hitler. Both sets of characterizations are intended to disparage the morality, even the humanity, of the opposing side – and while they are a natural temptation, they serve only to stifle the debate rather than move it in one direction or the other. (more…)