Transformation: More than meets the eye
One of the political discussions that I encounter from time to time is the question of transactional vs. transformational leadership. Barack Obama was supposed to have been a transformational president—at least that was the expectation, and as a competent center-right manager, he did demonstrate to the rational part of the country that a non-entirely-white president was no threat to the established order. But the nation did not undergo any change beyond the usual minor shifts that have been the norm for American politics since the 1970s.
His successor is infamous for being transactional—you do this for me; I do this for you—at least in attitude, though his reputation for not paying his bills suggests that he wants to skew the interaction heavily in his favor, but the type that he plays at being, the successful businessman, is often criticized by activists and daytime television psychologists as being concerned only about grubby economic exchanges, rather than being willing to engage in utopian dreams of new worlds.
But what, exactly, is being demanded in calls for a transformational leader? I ask this as yet another progressive, Marianne Williamson, attempts to win the Democratic Party’s nomination to be their candidate for the presidency, after having watched said party arrange to deny Bernie Sanders the same, and certainly, both offer messages of progress that would return the platform and hopefully the programs to the progressivism that was the party between FDR and LBJ. Neither suggests a dictatorship of the proletariat, a nationalization of industry, or anything else especially radical, but it is a sign of just how far to the right wing America has lurched in recent decades that any suggestion of guaranteeing healthcare for all or requiring that workers be paid a living wage is treated as the second coming of Joseph Stalin.
Sadly, all this discussion about transformational leaders has come down to demands that we must vote for whoever the Democrats pick in a given election cycle. When that was said about Obama, I was willing to give him a chance, until he voted for the massive welfare check to Wall Street in 2008 without requiring necessary changes for the benefit of us all in how the financial sector operates. Any attempt to call Hillary Clinton transformational were simply silly, given her history. And to say that Joe Biden is the most progressive president in a Twitter user’s lifetime, as I have seen asserted, leaves me annoyed with whoever allowed toddlers on social media. When Democrats are being honest, they will say that if only we vote for their lousy nominee this time, they will offer someone better—someone at least left of center if not actually progressive or, gasp, a genuine socialist—in the next election. I have had to explain so many times that I am not Charlie Brown and I do not even like football that I wonder if that scene is still a part of our common cultural vocabulary.
What many calling for a transformational approach seem to miss is the reality that politics is at its base transactional. This is true in any political system, regardless of its structure. In a monarchy, the king gets support from his barons and in turn rewards them. In authoritarian regimes, factions do each other favors. For systems in which the people vote—be that for the leaders or for the laws—the process works through the exchange of promises—vote for this, and I’ll vote for that later; vote for me, and I’ll see that national resources get used in the district, etc.
Some, and I include myself here, would like to see politicians have coherent visions that could be labeled transformative for those who are amused by assigning such descriptions. I, for example, want to see a global movement outward into the rest of the solar system and ultimately the stars. I would also like to have a social democracy wherever human beings gather in society. But to achieve glorious dreams such as these, politicians have to get elected and to stay for a while in office. To do that requires a return to voters, especially to those who are not enthralled by the grand program on offer. There can be no transformation without transaction, without giving this list of things in exchange that we want for other things that they, whoever they are in a given scenario, want.
What do Democrats offer? I am sorry to say that beyond defending corporate power and giving lip service to abortion and GSRM (gender, sexual, and romantic minority) rights, the only thing that they can come up with is gun control. They then get sniffy when I say that I do not in fact want that—though once again, at least on the national level, they do a lot more talking than acting.
Selling a vision takes time—note here how the Republican Party needed decades to win a large enough percentage of voters over to their combination of Christofascism and economic libertarianism before they could make durable changes to our collective understanding of the social contract. We on the left have much work to do and not a lot of time remaining to get it done, given how angry so many voters are and how much of a looming threat climate change is. To achieve the transformations that we want, we have to explain them to voters, while at the same time agreeing to give some things that even our opponents insist on. Keep gun rights—of course, I exercise those, too, but not enough of my fellow leftists do—and keep what you see as free speech—copy here what I said immediately before—on the bargain that we make sure that everyone has healthcare. Enjoy your air conditioners—I certainly do—and non-woke beer—yuck—on condition that we guarantee everyone a livable minimum wage and get to install wind turbines and solar panels. And so forth.
The left for too long has forgotten how to make deals. We come prepared to surrender before the negotiations begin. To achieve transformation, we have to engage in the transactions that build a base of support that can get big projects accomplished.