The Philosophy of Change

As soon as the CNN debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at the University of Texas in Austin was over, the pundits were trying to figure out who won. I thought the American people won and here's why. The contest is so close, the candidates so evenly matched, and the electorate so engaged, that Barack Obama could pursue a public dialogue on some profound philosophical issues - philosophical issues with immediate and practical consequences for our country.

The challenge in the debate for both candidates was to offer the voters a clear statement about the differences between them. And there are substantive differences. For example, on the question of the presidential posture towards Cuba in the post-Fidel era, Obama would meet with his brother and successor Raul Castro without conditions. Mrs. Clinton would impose conditions. Is this simply a difference over how "tough" to be with a communist or post-communist regime? No, though Hillary - as a woman, carries the burden of having to prove how tough she is in foreign relations (personal relations are another matter).

Obama took the conversation a step beyond the usual platitudes, for he located his willingness to meet with the next prime minister of Cuba as part of a pro-active initiative made necessary by the decline of American stature internationally. Our country has become so discredited and so unpopular in the eyes of the world that the next president must take personal responsibility for rebuilding trust and communication. Obama further argues that as someone who opposed the Iraq war from the start, unlike Hillary, he has the credibility to take that debate to the presumptive Republican nominee John McCain and win.

There were other substantive distinctions as well, having to do with the differences in their health care plans, responding to the foreclosure crisis, and so on. But it was here that Obama made his fundamental philosophical points about change by raising the issue - not of what should be done to make things better for ordinary Americans - but how these things can actually get done. It's not just a matter of putting forth policy positions, says Obama, but of bringing people together to demand those changes, to challenge the ways of Washington where, as he said, "good ideas go to die."

Obama acknowledged that he and Hillary - together with the Democratic Party as a whole - share a great many programmatic approaches. But, says Obama, unless we create a new coalition, a new political culture, one that includes more than just the Democratic Party, but also includes the mass movement of independent Americans, we will not change anything. Put another way (in more explicitly methodological terms) unless we change everything, we won't be able to change anything.

When I ran for president of the United States as an independent in 1988, I achieved some important firsts - through the hard work of many people, who were called "delusional" (and much worse) just as Obama's followers and supporters are now being branded. I became the first African-American and first woman to access the presidential ballot in all 50 states. My campaign was a tiny campaign, by present day Obama standards. I had 90,000 donors to my campaign, Obama has over 900,000. I raised $1 million in matchable contributions ($2 million the next time I ran), Obama has raised $130 million and he's not done yet.

But for all the difference in scale, there are some notable connections in substance. I was fortunate to have as my campaign manager a Stanford University-trained philosopher, Dr. Fred Newman, whose rigorous approach to the methodology of change and development is deeply grounded in the relationship between totalities and particulars - between changing everything and changing anything. He helped me to develop my basic political message of being an independent, of transcending partisanship, of bringing black and white Americans together by moving beyond identity politics and creating a new and inclusive coalition that focuses, not on the "what" - the "program" - but on the "how" - the process.

My campaign was not designed to "win," but to lay the foundation for an independent political movement based on these principles. Is it any wonder that the vast majority of independent voters today are supporting Barack Obama? No, for he is both a product of and a proselytizer for that independent movement which has taken shape "on the ground" for the past 20 years.

For centuries, philosophers have examined the question of "reality". What is it? What is its nature? Can we perceive it? Does it exist independent of our perception?

I was struck when Obama brought the issue of "reality" into the Austin debate. He challenged the idea that his supporters - so full of hope and so ready to turn the page - were out of touch with reality. As he said, they're not out of touch. They see the reality of what's going on in Washington, and they want to do something about it. In fact, they are doing something about it by joining together to create a new politic. Hillary thinks she's the one who can do something, but the Obama movement sees things differently.

Perhaps the most important thing about this election is that ordinary Americans are becoming more philosophical. They can discern the difference between a Clintonian debate over what "is" is and a developmental debate about what reality is. And they're discovering that reality is something that people create. And so, they are creatively going about the business of changing everything.