Democratic Insurgency [View All]

[H2O Man]

Insurgent: < L., insurgent, to rise up> : (n) 1: a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; esp. a rebel not recognized as a belligerent. (adj) 1: rising in opposition to civil authority or established leadership.
--Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

The media coverage of the democratic primary contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is interesting. In the past 24 hours, both campaigns have attempted to define their candidate as the "underdog" in the fight. One of the issues that overlaps with this is the financial strength of each campaign.

In January, there was a report in the media comparing the Clinton vs Obama fight to the Joe Frazier vs Muhammad Ali battles of the 1970s. A couple of DUers posted threads on this very topic: it makes for an interesting comparison, with Senator Clinton being cast as Smokin’ Joe Frazier, and Senator Obama as Ali, the "People’s Champ." Frazier, though not by his choice, was considered the establishment’s champion, and Ali – who refused to be drafted to serve in Vietnam – was the insurgent.

I took part in a couple of those discussions. I have long recognized that all of life imitates the ultimate reality of our universe: boxing. However, a few DUers found the Frazier vs Ali threads offensive. (I note that those who disliked the comparisons were all Clinton supporters.)

So I thought that today, we might focus on a topic that is a bit lighter, and of less importance in human history, than boxing. Let’s consider what an "insurgent" is, in terms of a couple of other governments that we might consider to share some characteristics with Washington, DC. I’m thinking of Rome and the British Empire.

Those in power view insurgents as dangerous outsiders, who pose a threat to the stability of their established system of authority. Those who are dissatisfied with the established authority consider the insurgent to be a potential reformer.

The establishment controls the largest population centers, or cities. The insurgent comes from the rural areas. The establishment has access to the financial purse-strings of those cities; the insurgent depends upon the smaller contributions of the common folk. The insurgent works patiently to cut off the smaller rural contributions to the establishment’s bank account.

The establishment has a ruling class, often dominated by a few families. The insurgent comes from the rural, tribal cultures that surround those cities. The Roman and British empires were white; both faced insurgencies that included rural white tribes (Celtic, including the Irish, etc) and of non-white peoples.

Some of the most notable insurgents in modern history were educated in both urban classrooms and rural hedge schools. As a rule, the establishment considers them to be a "credit to their race/ethnic group" so long as they dress up in established styles and think established thoughts.

But when insurgents step outside of the established boundary, it upsets the apple cart. Some of us are old enough to remember two insurgents from the 1960s, named Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. But there were many others. Some worked their way inside of the system, and worked for serious institutional change; others died along the way; and still more became co-opted by the silk and trinkets the system uses to seduce insurgents.

We are witnessing some curious dynamics within the democratic party. Both the establishment and insurgent camps have some valid points that we should listen to and give serious consideration. The Clinton wing of the party does have a history of building a solid structure in the big cities across the country. And they will continue to win the majority of the "big city" states’ primaries. The Obama camp has united many (though certainly not all) of the rural and minority tribes. His forces have gained control of many of the "small to medium city" states.

Both groups also have a negative potential. The Clinton camp has a sense of entitlement that offends a significant portion of the democratic party. And the tendency to portray Hillary Clinton as being a "for profit" corporate candidate who is not a champion of the middle- and lower economic classes offends another significant portion of the democratic party.

"Super Tuesday" showed that both Senator Clinton and Senator Barack enjoy the support of about half of the democratic voters. In the next few weeks and months, it will be fascinating to see how each approaches the struggle. It is also important to consider how people in the rural communities and urban centers across the US participate in this historic struggle. We can bring about the best potential in our party and country, or we can crush that same potential. And that is the real choice in this election.