I’ve been spending a lot of time with Buddhists lately. Say what you will about them, but you cannot fault them for not being goal oriented. What’s their goal? The total liberation of oneself and all living beings from suffering.

Whether you agree with the particular methods the Buddhists employ, it’s tough to argue with their aim. Who doesn’t want to be happy all the time? Who doesn’t want world peace? Who doesn’t want to free him or herself of anger and attachment? (If you’re not sure if you do, I suggest you meditate on it or tell me when is a good time to be sad, depressed, or angry? And no, Joy Division is not a worthy rationale for any of these things.)

Which leads me to Obama. Or more to the point, “Generation Obama,” if there is an identifiable thing. What is Generation Obama’s goal?

I read an article by George Packer in last week’s New Yorker, called “The New Liberalism.” Packer draws parallels between Obama and other “Transformational Presidents”: Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, et al. He writes how each man rode the crest of larger movement, and how they provided “moral leadership” as much as political leadership. Packer, quoting Robert B. Reich, Clinton’s first Labor Secretary, writes, “‘Lincoln had the abolitionists, Roosevelt the labor unions, Johnson the civil-rights leaders, Reagan the conservative movement.’ Clinton didn’t have one [a social movement], and after his election, ‘everyone went home.’” This to me is a great explanation for the short-term memory that followed the Clinton years: that despite a surplus economy, a fat middle class (figuratively and literally unfortunately) without the gravity of a social movement, his presidential proficiency was easily contorted in whichever way suited Rovian rhetoric, thus ushering in the purgatorial Bush years.
I don’t think Obama will be another Clinton. Both men have competence worthy of the ages. But this is not 1993. Problems in 1993, at least as far as I remember them, seemed somewhat straightforward: we had a recession, a botched but completed invasion of Iraq to contend with, and some stuff in the Balkans. But the full impact of Reaganonmics hadn’t reached their zenith. People still had health insurance (or at least could withstand not having it). Global warming was still easy to dismiss.
2009 isn’t so straightforward. The last 16 years have created an unprecedented level of change and ambiguity in the American and global social landscape. There are more current or impending issues that could (or should) constitute a social movement for Obama: looming economic disaster, a meltdown with Russia/Iran/N. Korea/etc., or an environmental catastrophe that could tear the fabric of modern life as we know it. Despite these worthy foes, Obama and his minions chief goal, something that could impel a movement, seems to be “not that”—not Reaganonomics, not Rovian manipulation, not Quayle/W./Palin exaltation of the average.
The lack of a primary goal may be attributable to the web, which has atomized the landscape of the status quo to such an extent that we want to tackle everything at once versus dealing with one central issue. We want to withdraw from Iraq in carbon-neutral troop carriers.
If you asked me what I think the central issue should be for Obama, I have to side with the Buddhists: I want to be free from suffering and I want the same for everyone. Buddhism has some esoteric and mentally rigorous prescriptions for ultimate freedom from suffering, but there are a couple earthly ways to reduce suffering in a way that might fall within presidential purview:
1. The environment. Whatever insinuation about an incremental approach to environmental policy reform must be tempered with the preponderance of evidence insisting on immediate and drastic reduction of carbon emissions. No other issue has the power to affect so many. Nor does any topic have the potential for being so intractable—we’re going to wish a tanking economy were our main problem when the Gulf Stream shuts down. This is not even to suggest all the possible benefits of reducing our desire for resources and energy, for which volumes could be written.
2. Peace. I’m with Einstein’s: I believe it’s impossible to simultaneously prepare and prevent war. We must get the hell out of the Middle East. I don’t know what our precise exit strategy will be, but the active withdrawal should be our intention. It’s a bad situation—one I don’t think is being resolved with our chaperone duties. I do think it’d help to install the infrastructure we destroyed, perhaps improving the conditions that make that region so fertile for “ain’t-got-nothing-to-lose” extremism. Just as harmful as the overt acts of violence are the tacit ones. We must stop colluding with totalitarian regimes through economic support; this is something easier to achieve with a lessened dependence on foreign energy and goods (see #1). I think our refusal to promote or be complicit with violence will have a profound effect upon the nation and the world.
But these are just my values. I created Lucid NYC to generate a conversation that compels people to make the world a better place for everyone. I would like to hear what you think, what you think a worthy social movement would be. Please comment or send me something to post. And of course, come to Lucid’s event Thursday armed with ideas. Until then, peace be with you.
David