Occupy Wall Street Needs To Expand Its Tactics

Occupy Wall Street is a new social movement that seeks to challenge the highly imbalanced distribution of wealth in the United States. Beyond this basic message it is unclear what the movement -- which has spread across the country -- wants to accomplish. Nevertheless, the movement has generated a lot of energy among progressives and captured media attention.

Not all of the attention, however, has been positive. Instead, the media has reported conflicts between various "Occupy" protesters and police. One of the most dramatic media reports involves a campus police officer at the University of California at Davis employing pepper spray against peaceful student protesters.  Municipal officials in various other locations have also sought to eject the protesters from the public spaces.

New Strategies Required

Although it seems abundantly clear that some of the police measures have violated either federal or state rights of the protesters, members of the Occupy movement will probably need to rethink its strategy in order to remain relevant. To date, the group's most visible strategy has involved the physical occupation of certain geographic spaces. Indeed, the name of the movement reflects this primary mobilization strategy.

Maintaining the occupying strategy as the single or even most prevalent tactic, however, could doom the movement. Although the protesters certainly have the right to assemble and engage in speech activities, it is unlikely they have the right to occupy public spaces indefinitely. Indeed, the Constitution allows government officials to use reasonable "time, manner and place" restrictions on public expression - so long as the restraints are unrelated to the content of the speech. Accordingly, the movement's primary strategy -- physical occupation -- is on a collision course with the government's ability to place certain restraints on protest activities. If the movement cannot engage in its primary protest strategy, then it is effectively silenced.

To avoid this inevitable defeat, the Occupy movement should move beyond this limited approach and engage in broader strategies. This could include having speeches and rallies (not simply occupying space), articulating concrete agendas, lobbying lawmakers, adopting media campaigns, and other strategies commonly used by successful social movements. Broadening the group's activities could also generate interest among individuals who do not have the luxury of spending time away from work and other responsibilities in order to occupy various locations of power. Until the movement adopts additional social movement strategies, it will likely dissipate without influencing public policy or politics.

Washington Post Asks: "Is Occupy Wall Street Overblown?" UPDATE

Media coverage of the Occupy Wall Street movement has increased sluggishly. Undoubtedly, the lack of media attention has deprived the public of meaningful information about the movement and the means to scrutinize its activities.

For these reasons, I was surprised to read Washington Post columnist Chris Cillizza's article which asks: "Is Occupy Wall Street Overblown?"  Cillizza implies that the movement is probably overly hyped. He reaches this unstated conclusion after analyzing a recent Pew study which shows that only a small percentage of the public is following the protests "very closely":

Just 17 percent [of respondents] said they were following the protests “very closely”. Independents — at 19 percent — were keeping the closest eye on the “Occupy” efforts while just 12 percent of Republicans did the same.

Only 17 percent of self-identified Democrats said they had were [sic] watching the protests closely, a somewhat surprising number given the party’s recent embrace of the motives and goals of the “OWS” crowd.

"Very closely" is probably too high a standard to measure the importance of any movement's relevance to society at any given moment. This is especially true with respect to embryonic movements like Occupy Wall Street.

My examination of the Pew study adds additional context.  The five stories that respondents said they were following most closely include (in descending order): the economy, the death of Steve Jobs, the 2012 election, Amanda Knox, Afghanistan, and Occupy Wall Street. Yet, the study finds that only 7 percent of recent news coverage related to the Wall Street protests. Not surprisingly, only 7 percent of respondents listed the protests as the most important news story. The scant media coverage makes it difficult for the average member of the public to follow the protests closely.

The study also finds that the public is less concerned with the Wall Street protests than it was with the Tea Party in 2009, during the early stage of its development. Pew finds, however, that media coverage of both movements was roughly equal during their developmental stages.  Cillizza seizes upon this data to bolster his argument about the irrelevance of the protests.  But neither Pew nor Cillizza recognizes that the Tea Party protests were often violent and rancorous -- factors that invited public attention and which undoubtedly led to a subsequent surge in media coverage.

Final Word: A Tip for Organizers

Although I believe that Cillizza's column does not provide nearly enough context to help readers appreciate the Pew study, I also believe that participants in the early Occupy Wall Street movement must quickly cohere around a marketable and distinct message. At the moment, the group has apparently resisted developing a political platform or policy agenda. The lack of specific demands or proposals will likely deter media coverage and hinder growth in public attention.

Historically, successful social movements have utilized creative frames to express and market their messages. They have also developed public policy agendas that they wish to implement through the political process. Furthermore, successful social movements have raised the awareness of not only potential movement participants but of the public at large. Unless the budding Occupy Wall Street movement begins to utilize some traditional social movement mobilization techniques, it will probably dissipate without effectuating any meaningful social change.

[Note: I write and teach in the area of Law and Social Movements.]

UPDATE
Two new surveys suggest that Cillizza's article was shortsighted. First, a Time magazine survey finds that a 54 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Also, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds that 37 percent of respondents "tend to support" the movement; only 17 percent "tend to oppose" it.

Repeat After Me: Obama Is A Moderate

Every time new legislation or policies fall short of the expectations of progressives, several things happen. First, progressives complain that President Obama (yet again) has rushed to compromise with moderates and conservatives. Second, media commentators praise President Obama for being pragmatic and willing to work with others. Third, conservatives describe the legislation or policies as evidence of President Obama's sinister plot to turn the US into a communist society. To all who have engaged in this discourse, repeat after me: Obama is a moderate.

Progressives Continue to Ignore Reality
Regular readers of this blog know that I have long described Obama as a moderate -- even before he was elected. A long list of prior blog entries on this subject appears below this article. During the Democratic primaries, when Obama was the untouchable darling of the progressive community, I often watched with alternating confusion and amazement over the Left's collective worship of Obama and its portrayal of him as a progressive figure.

After Obama was elected, several factors indicated that he would fall far short of the wild expectations that many progressives had of him. He appointed despised Clinton-era officials to positions in his own administration. He chose Hillary Clinton, a "defeated" enemy of the political left, as his Secretary of State. And he would soon show his commitment to some policies of the Bush administration that progressives had vigorously opposed.

Although these decisions caused some progressives to awaken quickly from what I have described as an Obama-Vegetative State (a condition in which the patient is unable to think critically about Obama), clearly, others remain wedded to the unsubstantiated idea that Obama is a true progressive.

Despite the variety of data that prove Obama's moderate leanings, many progressives cling to the fantasy that he is a leftist. Accordingly, they become extremely upset when he dives toward the center and "compromises" with Republicans and moderate Democrats on issues such as the healthcare public option, the Bush tax cuts, and the magnitude and substance of the economic stimulus. Progressives demand that Obama negotiate from the left and move slightly to the right. Surprisingly, they assume that he shares their desire to start from the left in the first place.

The False Pragmatism Canard
In response to progressive criticism over Obama's political moderation, media commentators scold progressives for being partisans. They also praise Obama for being flexible and strategic. These commentators believe that Obama is a progressive but that he, unlike his progressive critics, is pragmatic. Most of these commentators, however, do not even engage the possibility that Obama himself is a strategic moderate who occupies the center not because failing to do so would doom him politically, but because this is the political space that coincides with his own ideological commitments.

The Conservative Red Scare Tactic
No one can convince Obama's rightwing critics that he is not a Muslim, socialist, communist, foreign-born individual causing the inevitable destruction of US society. So, I will leave them to their ideas. It is interesting, however, that the right and the left are equally drawn to their belief that Obama is a progressive.

What Progressives Must Do
If progressives wish to engage in helpful politics, they must first embrace a strategy grounded in reality rather than fiction. President Obama is a moderate. Starting with this premise creates the conditions for effective political action.

Second, progressives must become students of history. Moderate presidents have presided over deeply progressive social change, such as the abolition of slavery, the extension of voting rights to women, and the implementation of extensive civil rights legislation in the 1960s. If progressives study this history, they can learn how to build effective political action for change.

Third, progressives must engage in organized social movement behavior to shape public opinion about the need for change -- rather than exclusively focusing on their defeats. Although many progressives continue to participate in collective politics, these efforts are literally drowned out by the voices of critics who are continually frustrated by a president who does not satisfy their unrealistic expectations about his political ideology.

Finally, progressives need to engage in multidimensional political advocacy. Focusing on one political figure is a completely ineffective political strategy. Historically, political change has come about as a result of complex activism at the local, state and federal level. This political action has targeted voters, corporations, lawmakers, and executive branch officials. It has also involved courts and litigation. For many progressives, however, the national government -- and more specifically Obama -- has absolute centrality.

Social movements have produced remarkable progressive changes in the US. Part of this history involved criticism of political leaders. Nonetheless, a large part of that history centered around crafting public information campaigns and fostering ties with the public and with multiple layers of politicians and private entities to create political opportunities for change. If progressives refuse to follow this historical practice, then they will have to blame themselves as much as (or even more than) Obama for the failure of progressive politics.

The promised reading list on Obama as a moderate:

2008 Is Not 1964: Why Liberal Mania and Conservative Panic Are Nothing But Melodrama

Chicken Little Politics: Moderate Obama Causes Progressive Panic

Criticizing President Obama Is Pragmatic

Progressives Awaken from Obama-Vegetative State

Free at Last? No!

From the "Duh" Files: Effusive Political Adoration Does Not Lead to Social Change

A Sober Look at a Democratic Sweep

If Obama Emulates Lincoln, Will Progressives Follow Abolitionists and Radical Republicans?

Head Explosion at The Nation: Left "Duped" by Its "Own Wishful Thinking"

The "Yes We Can" Movement Gets Sudden Reality Check!

Criticizing President Obama Is Pragmatic

President Obama's defenders in the media often describe him as a "pragmatist." Although these journalists usually do not define the term, it seems that they wish to imply that Obama can set aside his ideological commitments in order to deliver concrete results to his constituents. By contrast, many commentators portray Obama's progressive critics as people who place ideology above tangible results and who refuse to compromise and accept the incremental advancement of their overall political agenda.

Mainstream media outlets barely do a decent job reporting the news. Their attempt at political science is absolutely atrocious.

The Assumption That Obama Is a Progressive
When commentators describe Obama as a pragmatist, they assume that he is a progressive who compromises to achieve practical benefits. It is unclear, however, that Obama is actually a progressive.

Although Obama became the darling of the political Left during the Democratic primaries, he never really embraced policies that were more progressive than other mainstream Democratic presidential contenders. Nevertheless, the Left was so desperate to replace President Bush and to avoid the "triangulation" of the Clinton era that it easily accepted Obama's progressive narrative. Obama also benefited from an adoring media, which failed to raise tough questions about his progressive credentials and which often rushed to denounce his critics.

After he secured the Democratic nomination, President Obama started moving more overtly to the center. Many progressives accepted this "transformation" as a necessary element of a national political campaign. But long before he won the election or even the Democratic nomination, progressives had enough reasons to question Obama's liberal credentials. Obama, for example, criticized a Supreme Court ruling that reaffirmed prior caselaw forbidding the death penalty in rape cases. He also praised a conservative Court ruling that found an individual right to bear arms and which invalidated a Washington, DC gun law. Obama also voted to renew the Patriot Act and, betraying a campaign promise, to extend immunity to telecoms that conducted unlawful surveillance on behalf of the Bush Administration. Citing his own religious views, Obama stated that he did not agree with same-sex marriage. And while the antiwar Left certainly preferred Obama to Hillary Clinton, Obama, like Clinton, said that he viewed the war in Afghanistan as a "just" war.

Although journalists often portray Obama as a pragmatic progressive who can prioritize concrete outcomes over his own ideological commitments, another narrative is also highly plausible. Obama is a political centrist who is in fact pursuing his own ideological commitments -- even if this means discarding the interests of liberals who were instrumental to his political success. This narrative, however, does not sound nearly as laudatory and self-sacrificing as the pragmatism rhetoric. It is, however, a perfectly logical take on Obama's political orientation.

Even if Obama is a progressive, he could compromise his ideological values in order to maximize his opportunity for reelection. If this is the reason for Obama's "pragmatism," then it is unclear that voters -- and certainly liberal voters -- should laud his careful effort to tread the center and to compromise with conservatives.

The Assumption That Obama's Progressive Critics Are Not Pragmatic
Commentators who laud Obama as a pragmatist almost uniformly condemn his progressive critics as ideological and impractical. Unlike Obama, who is a good, pragmatic progressive, liberals who criticize the President are politically inflexible ideologues whose rigidity, if widely followed, would preclude the implementation of helpful policies.

This juxtaposition of Obama (good, pragmatic) and his progressive critics (impractical, ideologues) has occurred most recently in debates surrounding healthcare reform. After the White House instructed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to delete the public plan and Medicare buy-in from the healthcare bill, liberals criticized Obama for betraying his campaign promises and for watering-down the measure. The White House responded by calling Obama's liberal critics "irrational" and "insane." Ronald Brownstein of The Atlantic argued that they are privileged white college graduates who need not worry about the practical implications of their positions. These arguments are deeply flawed.

Brownstein's racial analysis is simply another bizarre manifestation of the notion that criticizing Obama -- even from a progressive perspective -- inevitably comes from a racial place. This argument is old, tired, and should be retired.

With respect to the point about pragmatism, depending upon the goals of progressives, criticizing Obama could operate as a highly pragmatic political tactic. President Obama has several items on his agenda -- including reelection. These goals, however, might cause him to act in a way that is inconsistent with progressive political agendas. Progressives can only influence Obama and other elected Democrats if they express their discontent. If they can also reveal that Obama is betraying his liberal base, then they can possibly make him more vulnerable from a political perspective. In order to cure or avoid this vulnerability, Obama may have to act in a way that addresses the concerns of progressives. If progressives never complain or engage in advocacy or mobilization, then politicians will have very few incentives to address their concerns.

By criticizing Obama, progressives are modeling the behavior of social movement participants as diverse as the abolitionists, suffragists, civil rights advocates, feminists, and proponents of GLBT rights. Progressive movements have never achieved their goals by peacefully acquiescing to the will of politicians. While successful progressive movements have undoubtedly made and accepted compromises, they have also condemned politicians -- even sympathetic politicians -- when doing so was appropriate. The election of Obama does not provide a reasonable basis for abandoning this tried and tested historical approach to social change.

I Wrote This In October 2008. . . .

On October 21, 2008, when Dissenting Justice was still getting started as a blog, I wrote the following essay reprinted below. I am republishing it because it seems highly relevant today. FYI: The article received many hits at the time and remains very popular among readers.

________________________________________________________________

2008 Is Not 1964: Why Liberal Mania and Conservative Panic Are Nothing But Melodrama

Keeping with the theme of this blog, I have decided to critique the dramatic commentary coming from liberal and conservative circles about the implications of a likely expanded Democratic majority in Congress and probable victory for Barack Obama. Democrats are getting ready to dance in the streets, while Republicans have assumed a "Red Scare" posture. On the sidelines, I watch with alternating amusement and astonishment. Both sides exaggerate the significance of a Democratic victory - particularly when they analogize it to the period of massive legal and social change in the 1960s.

Republicans Channel Paul Revere: "The Liberals Are Coming, the Liberals Are Coming!"
The editors of the Wall Street Journal set off a rallying cry last week, in an opinion piece predicting gloom and doom from a "liberal supermajority." The WSJ predicts that a Democratic Executive and Congress, including a filibuster-proof Senate, "would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s." I guess it would also replace the activist government that fell out of public favor in 2008. I wrote about this opinion piece in a previous blog entry.

On the campaign trail, McCain and Palin have already insinuated that Obama's economic policy resembles European socialism. Now, as the San Francisco Chronicle reports, McCain's campaign has decided to raise the specter of full Democratic control of the national government as dangerous. Despite the fact that the Republicans have controlled Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court for many years, they will shamelessly market the virtues of divided control. So, expect to hear more soundbites about the perils of the Obama-Pelosi-Reed triumvirate.

Democrats: We Believe We Can Fly!
The Democrats, on the other hand, are salivating from the implications of a clean sweep. For some time now, liberal commentators have gleefully predicted the demise of the Republicans and the establishment of a liberal utopia. Earlier this year, New York Times columnist Frank Rich wrote a eulogy, masquerading as political commentary, remarking on the death of the Republican Party. Rich opined that "the G.O.P. looks more like a nostalgic relic than a national political party in contemporary America. A cultural sea change has passed it by." Rich predicts that a "national rout in 2008 just may be that Republican Party’s last stand." Obama supporter Jonathan Alter of Newsweek has written a similar, but more guarded, column called "We're Heading Left Once Again," in which he asserts that Obama "would have a fighting chance to move the country to a new place, or at least one we haven't seen for a while. Leftward ho!" Finally, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen has a "hot from the press" article entitled "Party Like It's 1964." Cohen argues that Bush and McCain have "constructed a mean, grumpy, exclusive, narrow-minded and altogether retrograde Republican Party." Accordingly, the GOP has earned its fate: life in the "political wilderness."

My Take: Both Sides Are Just Wrong
Republicans lament the advent of U.S. socialism, while Democrats prepare to build a new "Great Society." From both of these notions, I respectfully dissent. Despite all of the passionate predictions of an impending liberal takeover of the country, both sides overstate the significance of a Democratic presidential victory, even one connected to an expanded liberal majority in Congress. Here's why.

The Country Remains Right of Center
Despite the apparent resurrection of the Democratic Party as a contender for the White House, the Country remains right of center. And if you compare aspects of American social policy with other liberal democracies, the country's political core looks solidly conservative. If the Democrats want to get re-elected -- which is likely their paramount goal as politicians -- then they will have to operate within the constraints of that political reality. Any sweeping liberal change will receive stiff resistance. Certainly, any costly liberal policy proposal will receive even louder opposition. Bush and the Republicans engaged in excess, and they are paying for it. Smart Democrats like Obama will avoid this at all costs -- not by building a coalition for radical change -- but by aiming for the middle.

When Clinton was elected in 1992, my liberal colleagues were similarly exuberant about the possibilities of a liberal shakeup of the country, although with Obama, liberals have become absolutely ecstatic (translation: unbounded from political reality). But the nasty reaction to Hillary Clinton's vanguard effort to create a national health care system and the backlash -- led primarily by Colin Powell -- against Bill Clinton for attempting to lift the ban on gays and lesbians in the military -- gave people an early wakeup call. Merely electing a Democrat does not mean that the electorate has fundamentally changed with respect to political ideology.

Many commentators have also neglected to consider that Obama actually trailed or tied McCain in most polls until Lehman Bros. collapsed. When several other financial institutions imploded, Obama reclaimed the lead, which has only sharpened. This change in his fortune surely does not mean that the country has become suddenly left or center-left. Instead, non- or less-partisan voters are simply doing what they have done throughout American political history: They are blaming the incumbent and the incumbent party for poor economic conditions. On top of this historical skepticism towards incumbents during bad times, Obama has successfully blamed Bush for the financial crisis -- even though this is a major distortion (as FactCheck.Org documents). The economy -- not a new liberal electorate-- has placed Obama on top of the polls.

An Election Alone Is not a Social Movement
Obama's rallies are filled with thousands of supporters. Scores of new voters have registered as Democrats, many due to the appeal of both Democratic candidates during the primaries. Obama has formed a coalition of liberal/leftist elite whites, blacks (who were already the most faithful Democrats), women, young people, and some moderates. Several commentators have argued that these changes will lead to the implementation of much more liberal social policy -- just like in the 1960s. This is not necessarily true.

Many of the changes that occurred during the 1960s happened because of very sustained, sometimes even violent, political activism and unrest. Although Clinton was right in saying it took a president to sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964, she should have also cited her earlier work, because a very large "village" helped create the political conditions that ensured passage of the law.

The implementation of the 1960s legislation that prohibited discrimination in areas of employment, voting, the usage of federal money (the denial of which would have crippled segregated schools), and access to places of public accommodation, resulted from decades of social movement activity. It also resulted from a remarkable alignment of domestic leftist interests with the national government's need to project a good image into the international community. The U.S. justified its Cold War policing of foreign countries on the need to fight totalitarianism and fascism. News of racial terrorism and discrimination against U.S. blacks, which the Soviet Union rapidly distributed to other countries, disrupted the attainment of this latter goal.

Comparing the 1960s with the current situation does not reveal many parallels. Granted, young people are passionate and fed up with the current government (just like most other people). But many participants in the current Democratic resurgence have united in order to secure the defeat of Bush (Cheney-Rumsfeld-McCain-Rice-Powell*), rather than to accomplish a broad set of liberal social policies. During the primaries, the media joyfully reported Obama's victories in a string of red states, where he often secured the vast majority of white votes. But it remains unclear what beyond electing Obama and ending the war unifies white Democrats in Wyoming or Utah with blacks in Brooklyn, and gays and lesbians in San Francisco. These groups view the Democrats as a healthy alternative to the Republicans. But outside of ejecting the Republicans from leadership, wanting change is merely a political slogan, not a political movement. Desiring something new does not transform what already exists.

Obama Is Not Wildly Liberal Compared with Other Democrats
During the Democratic primaries, Obama supporters, especially blogs such as HuffingtonPost, Daily Kos, and Mother Jones, vehemently worked to distinguish Obama and Clinton ideologically. Clinton was just "more of the same." She was, gasp, almost a Republican. Her war vote, Obama said, showed a lack of judgment. To his supporters, it proved that she was a shameless hawk. Even when commentators like Paul Krugman said her health plan was more progressive than Obama's, his supporters said that she was lying anyway and would not work to achieve it. Some of them (and the Obama team as well) said that it would "force" people to participate, which sounded a lot like the Republican rejection of "Hillarycare."

Once the primaries ended and polls showed that many of Clinton's disgruntled supporters intended to vote for McCain or neither candidate, their rhetoric turned around completely. Instead of being a Republican in Democratic clothing, Clinton held the exact same position as Obama on all social issues. Accordingly, PUMAs would betray their party and preferred candidate's life work if they voted for McCain. So is Clinton now wildly liberal like Obama or is Obama less progressive than his supporters claimed? Probably a little of both.

Obama is a great politician and lawyer, which has led to much of his success. He knows how to embrace policies specifically enough to show commitment, but always leave room for nuancing his stance later. A lot of Democrats in the past, like Gore and Kerry, could not do this effectively. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, could. Part of it comes from being a lawyer and knowing that "is" can have multiple meanings.

Outside of abortion, where Obama has a very consistent record of progressive voting, it is unclear what other liberal area he is as far to the left as his supporters portrayed him during the primaries. For example, he is against the war, but so are most Americans. He believes in multilateral foreign relations, but this is hardly a novel idea for the U.S. He campaigned on universal health care, but so did all of the other Democrats, and it is unclear whether the electorate will support this policy under a time of economic hardship. He took the position that the Supreme Court should have authorized the death penalty in rape cases -- even though the history of applying capital punishment for sexual assault follows a horribly racist pattern. And he supported the Supreme Court's recent Second Amendment ruling, which found an individual right to bear arms sufficient enough to defeat Washington, DC's ban on handguns. Obama, like Bush and McCain, does not support same-sex marriage, but endorses local efforts to make it a reality. It appears that Obama can chase the center, middle, and right -- just like Bill Clinton, the original triangulator.

Furthermore, despite Obama's opposition to the war and his view that supporting it shows a lack of judgment, Obama selected Biden -- who voted for the war -- as a running mate. Despite his slamming of Clinton for supporting NAFTA, Biden actually voted for the legislation, which Obama himself says he will not seek to repeal. Biden also voted for the bankruptcy reform legislation, which Obama derided as showing a lack of compassion to consumers. Also, while Democrats blame (wrongfully) the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act for the current financial crisis, Obama has called upon Clinton's former Secretary of Treasury Ron Rubin for economic advice. Rubin supported Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and he is currently a Director of Citicorp, one of the largest beneficiaries of the legislation.

Finally, Obama recently accepted Colin Powell's endorsement, despite Powell having delivered one of the most compelling arguments to the United Nations for the war. Powell's dissertation on the war utilized forged materials, which purported to document Iraq's effort to obtain uranium from Niger. Powell also orchestrated political opposition to Clinton's effort to lift the ban on gays and lesbians in the armed forces, which gave us the terrible "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" compromise. Nevertheless, Powell's endorsement has received almost universal praise from Democrats. Obama's negotiation and acceptance of the endorsement is brilliant from a political perspective. But it does not fit with the narrative of a leftist politician who will fundamentally change the U.S and who hates all things related to Bush and his war.

Only White Old Heterosexual Males Are Predicting the Demise of White Old Heterosexual Male Power
Finally, I think it is worth mentioning that only white old heterosexual males have predicted the demise of white old heterosexual male power. Joining Rich, Alter, Cohen and McCain, Alec Baldwin recently asserted that Obama's election would neutralize racism and kill the civil rights movement. Most of the commentators and politicians I have seen who believe that November will usher in a leftist regime that will grip America and slay old white power are part of that demographic themselves, regardless of political affiliation. Why is that? Perhaps because women, people of color, the poor, and gays and lesbians know from personal experience that meaningful progressive change does not happen overnight. Perhaps it is because we know that creating equal opportunity still requires a lot of work. Maybe it is because having just witnessed a plenty of crude sexism, racism, and mocking of poor uneducated voters from so-called liberals during this election cycle, we cannot imagine a Democratic victory causing substantial progressive change. I hope our cynicism goes too far, but for now, I am sticking with history and my own instincts. Accordingly -- Republicans should: "Chill out!" You are down, but not done. And Democrats should: "Put down the pom poms and start doing the hard work of building effective social movement activity, which actually involves some very honest and open political debate and self-criticism.