To many people truly aware of the world around them, I imagine that 2014 must have been very disturbing to their peace of mind, what with the riots, militarized police, right-wing victories, Ebola, etc... Meanwhile, 2015 doesn't seem to be shaping up all too great either. So far police-related assaults and homicides aren't slowing down, the Arctic has been opened up to drilling instead of attempting to ween our society off of fossil fuels, and now the position of US president has the 6-year authority to pass trade deals without changing them. Of course people will say, "All of this will fix itself," or "Things are not that bad," but you would know that wasn't true if you actually looked at the larger picture.
I've researched and kept up with politics and world events for sometime, and over time I've noticed certain upsetting things; information that may not be the easiest to accept. Despite it, I feel that someone needs to say what needs to be said. I don't know of anybody who has yet, so I'll be that guy.
(This will be the first entry in a short multi-part series of entries. This is 1 out of 4.)
The Next Truly Effective Leaders of Change Will NOT Be a MLK or Gandhi
The most obvious, yet seemingly most elusive fact, is that whoever effectively leads the people of this country in a movement for real change, is not going to be a Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr.
Why?
Simple... there was, is, and always will be ONE Gandhi and ONE MLK!
Think about it: What makes you, YOU? You look a certain way, talk a certain way, act a certain way, but those aren't the only things that make you. Your uniqueness doesn't just come from physicality and behavior, but also from the technology available, social conditions, climate, politics, friends, family, etc... Your experience with them helps mold you into who you are today. They present to you certain opportunities and threats, which defines your strengths and weaknesses. These firsthand experiences, are and will be, only unique to you. All of this makes you who you are, not just in the eyes of others, but your own self-image as well. It is because of that, your unique qualities dictate how you handle a situation.
Same principle applies to all of the famous and infamous figures throughout history, and the reason why they are. Whenever someone says, "We need another MLK/Gandhi!", or "They would be ashamed of what happened!", or "We should do what they did; it worked when they did it!", it entirely misses the fact that they were successful back then, because their uniqueness made them the right person at the right place and time. Everything from their birth to their death makes them THEM. If they were alive today, or were born at a different time and place, we don't know how they would handle the issues presented to them then, because in the here and now, our very thought of who they are currently would not exist.
What I'm trying to say is that everyone since Gandhi and MLK, who try to copy their actions to achieve effective success, amount to nothing more than impersonators and copycats. They're not the original architects of the idea or action. Instead, they're an inspired party hoping to somehow reproduce the same results doing the same exact things, or a watered-down version of such. Emulation can't inspire people, but only remind people of how the original was superior.
There's likely those of you out there saying:
- But MLK was inspired by Gandhi, and he was successful with Civil Rights.-
Yeah, and Gandhi was inspired by Leo Tolstoy. Keep in mind, I'm NOT saying every person who gets inspired is an imitator. There are three attributes that distinguishes them from an original architect:
1.) Leo Tolstoy wrote The Kingdom of God Is Within You and A Letter to a Hindu, which helped form Gandhi's views on nonviolent resistance. Gandhi applied these ideas to the non-cooperation movement and the Salt March, causing him to be arrested afterwards. MLK used these nonviolent actions in the Birmingham campaign. He was arrested early in the campaign, but wrote the Letter from Birmingham Jail in his cell, and later that year marched on D.C. where he gave his famous "I Have a Dream" speech. Originality is what inspires others, and it's what impersonators and copycats forget the most.
2.) You know what's even less inspiring than something unoriginal? When that unoriginal something is repeated within a relatively short period of time. Even years after MLK, many people still use the same old tactics; different variations, but essentially the same. Impersonators and copycats don't just retread familiar territory, but they retread it often.
3.) Like I mentioned before, MLK's and Gandhi's uniqueness made them the right person at the right place and time. They didn't succeed from their actions alone; the opposition had to be in the right conditions to making dealing with them possible:
- How susceptible to reason are the right people?
- Is it possible to make your grievances more appealing to those people?
- How important are your grievances to them in comparison to their other interests?
- Are there presently less desirable alternatives the opposition would face if they don't listen?
- How often have they encountered actions like yours? Gandhi and MLK existed during a time that made what they did the most optimal choice of strategy. Impersonators and copycats can only be shallow representations of who inspired them, and not original thinkers. Since they can't be original, it doesn't occur to them that the actions they employ repeatedly, can only result in some form of success under certain conditions that allow it. Outside of said conditions, success is impossible.
- Okay, so who are the next leaders then, if they won't be a Gandhi or MLK? -
We may have caught a glimpse of something closer to what people may be looking for in their next leaders just last year. Remember Cliven Bundy?
Yes, that same cowardly, racist thief who ran off US BLM agents. Believe it or not, when he first appeared in the national limelight, he was actually becoming very popular (on the Right Wing, at least). Under the impression that he was fighting against issues like government overreach, he was joined by protesters, militia, and even politicians; the media fed him even more attention. Not long after however, the public found that he was actually fighting to have his cattle graze on public lands illegally. He really lost the majority of people when he said black people were better off under slavery, and when he and his supporters considered using women as human shields. You would think that would be the end of him, and yet look at this picture from an article on High Country News:
This is after a meeting on April 11, 2015 during a three-day “liberty celebration” commemorating their "victory" over the BLM the previous year. Despite not being the 300 plus people they expected, over 100 attended this event. That is still a lot of people for an event, celebrating someone like Bundy. What is even more baffling is that if you look closely at that picture, you can see people of different skin colors there; even a few blacks!
- Why? Why would anybody still follow Cliven Bundy? -
Remember how it was mentioned that imitators retread familiar territory often? It has gotten to the point where a die-in or an activist getting arrested, elicits ho-hum feelings or even annoyance. It's like playing with a jack-in-a-box every day, in where you know what's going to happen after the last note of "Pop Goes the Weasel" finishes. People get so used to seeing what happens, any impact that the original actions had is now lost.
Now, remember the old adage, "what is old is new again?" In spite of what you think of Bundy, his defiant Big Stick reasoning against a bigger force is something people are not used to seeing in this country nowadays by a civilian; maybe in foreign countries, but certainly not in the USA. Deep down inside, even the biggest of this nation's pacifists must see the more nonviolent and peaceful efforts, against major issues brought on by corporations and governments as, well... in vain. Pacifism depends on the possibility of a stronger force or higher power to take pity and enact the necessary changes for you. What happens when that force is not present, or that power refuses to comply? Really, when was the last time chanting "Shame on you!" changed an elected official's mind? Compared to how problems are supposed to be solved by what is considered civilized nowadays, his Neanderthal-like actions technically yielded favorable results, which drew people in. No red tape, no need to compromise, just give me what I want or I'll take whatever I can get!
- His violent actions inspired people like that couple who committed the Las Vegas shooting in 2014! Right-wing loonies don't represent the interests of rational Americans, so Bundy will never be an effective leader! -
First thing, those two were the types that if it wasn't him they would've found another reason to do what they did, or something close to it; it was only a matter of time.
Second, I definitely agree, they don't represent my interests either, and Bundy will never be an effective leader. However, I never said Bundy would be an effective leader. I said he was "a glimpse of something close to what people may be looking for in their next leaders." Not his racism, selfishness, or acts of cowardliness, but his sheer gall to even go against an armed opposition, make demands of them, and all with the willingness to use force if needed.
- Are you implying that there should be more extremists running around killing innocent people? -
Far from saying that there should be killing. Use of force doesn't necessarily involve killing, but that's beside the point. Someone as abhorrent of an individual like Bundy was able to get people in this modern society to still follow him, because when boiled down, his actions were both, successful in yielding results, and different from the usual popular recourse. If we hope to make any strides in today's world, the next truly effective leader/s has to be not only disciplined, susceptible to logic, reason and empathy, and good at communicating intentions, but also bold and willing to include force as an option. Setting limits on when to use force, what type of force to use, how far to go with it, and making it well known publicly why it was done, greatly determines whether someone will be mostly hailed as a "hero" or mostly chided as a "villain".
- We have had victories using pacifism recently! -
Look closer at those victories and answer yourself honestly. How many of those victories:
- Were against issues that effect everybody or a majority of people?
- Would directly benefit, or have little to no impact on, government or corporate revenues when changed?
- Had more of a symbolic or cultural significance, than an institutional or financial significance?
- Were against issues that, if not resolved soon, had the very likely potential to effect the nation, or even the world, negatively?
Pacifism definitely has its place in making good changes, but when it comes to certain issues, especially those with a deadline to (at least,) mitigate the worse effects, it's not going to do the trick.
- No one said that pacifism is easy. It may be slow and hard, but success is ensured in the end. -
First, let's compare the main goals of the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the non-cooperation movement for India's independence, and nowadays:
- Civil Rights: End of Racial Segregation
- India: Independence
- Today: No nationally shared central goal, no notable national movement
Now let's compare some of the most notable leaders who worked towards similar ends and existed around the same time:
- Civil Rights: MLK, Jesse Jackson, Rosa Parks, (or Claudette Colvin since she was the one who did it first,) Philip Randolph, Joseph Lowery
- India: Mahatma Gandhi, Lala Lajpat Rai, Jawaharlal Nehru, Chandra Shekhar Azad (became violent only after the movement was suspended in 1922)
- Today: No notable national movement, no leaders worth noting
Finally let's compare their successes and their final catalysts:
- Civil Rights: Civil Rights Act of 1968; The Kerner Commission report on the 1967 ghetto riots was delivered to Congress on March 1, and it strongly recommended "a comprehensive and enforceable federal open housing law" as a remedy to the civil disturbances. As the House of Representatives deliberated the bill in April, Dr. King was assassinated, and the largest wave of unrest since the Civil War swept the country.
... Senators and Representatives publicly stated they would not be intimidated or rushed into legislating because of the disturbances. Nevertheless, the news coverage of the riots and the underlying disparities in income, jobs, housing, and education, between White and Black Americans helped educate citizens and Congress about the stark reality of an enormous social problem. Members of Congress knew they had to act to redress these imbalances in American life to fulfill the dream that King had so eloquently preached. - Senator Charles Mathias
- India: In terms of immediate objectives, the movement failed because of heavy-handed suppression, weak coordination and the lack of a clear-cut course of action. However, the British government realized that India was ungovernable in the long run, especially with the coming of the Second World War.
- Today: No notable national movement, no success.
The Civil Rights Movement and the Indian non-cooperation movement had a national movements and leaders of note. Today, there is NO defined national movement, meaning NO notable leaders and NO success. The closest thing to it that appeared in recent times was Occupy Wall Street, and that failed for its lack of direction and endgame, (amongst other things,) which are central to a successful movement. In addition, there is no undesirable alternative left over for the opposition to face. Without such, the opposition doesn't feel the obligation to consider our concerns, which gives us no leverage and places us totally under their mercy.
The main point: MLK and Gandhi were successful in helping to bring substantial change from their rarity and uniqueness, not just from their lives, but from the conditions around them that allowed success. The same conditions that brought different other rare and unique leaders together to fight towards the same cause. The same conditions that gave the opposition little choice but to comply to the demands of the people. The same conditions that were the perfect storms for the creation of successful national movements. Our desperate attempts to reproduce effective successes by emulating our heroes in conditions different from when they were alive, will never create the changes we need now. Fresh new strategies have to be thoroughly tailored in accordance to the current overall environment and public needs, in spite of laws and the fear of facing conflict. Whichever individuals pulls this off will certainly become an effective leader for a brand new movement.
- That's why I vote. We need good politicians in power to make real change. -
Umm, yeah...there's some bad news in the next entry.