Rebuild the Dream

by Van Jones

  For instance, many of us will weep in traffic, listening to some tearjerker of a story on National Public Radio (NPR). We seethe and rage about injustices overseas, in countries we have never visited. We will give away our hard-earned money to save the habitat of some endangered animal that would probably eat us alive, if we ever ran into it in the wild. No matter how many times we hear Dr. King’s “I Have A Dream” speech, we still choke up. For all our attempts to rationalize and intellectualize our worldview, we are just as emotionally driven as our more right-wing peers, if not more so.

  So what if we were to integrate into our model another dimension, beyond the rational?

  If we expand the framework to include that new dimension, it would look like this:

  To the original process model of concept-to-action, I have added a vertical axis that runs from rational-to-emotional. You can think of this as running from the head to the heart. Adding this dimension creates the Heart Space/Head Space Grid.

  The grid gives us four quadrants to play with, not just two poles. These quadrants depict the political process as a combination of

  1. Rational + Conceptual (Head Space)

  2. Emotional + Conceptual (Heart Space)

  3. Emotional + Actionable (Outside Game)

  4. Rational + Actionable (Inside Game)

  HEAD SPACE

  Let’s begin in the upper left quadrant of the grid, where the Rational + Conceptual meet. I call this quadrant the “Head Space.” This is the home of the think tanks, academics, and policy wonks. Here, among facts and rational arguments, the stereotypical liberal intellectual will feel the most comfortable. Here the world sounds like NPR and reads like the New York Times. The sentences are long, the arguments are nuanced, and the numbers are precise. This is an important space: one cannot make meaningful, effective, and lasting change without a sober view of the data combined with sound policy prescriptions.

  HEART SPACE

  As I have said, politics is not just about what goes on in one’s head. Politics is fueled not only by the ideas we hold and communicate rationally. How many people vote for a candidate based merely on brains versus based on looks, charisma, trustworthiness, or je ne sais quoi? Politics is also about what happens in one’s heart. That is why I call the lower left quadrant, where the emotions have sway, the “Heart Space.” This quadrant is home to the great storytellers, artists, preachers, and other resonant communicators. Politics is energized by the emotions: feelings of love and rage, contempt and compassion, pride and shame. Its building blocks are those stories that make us want to raise our fists or that leave us with a lump in our throats. At their most powerful, political ideas touch our souls. They arouse our passions. If going into the Head Space feels like going to school, then going into the Heart Space feels like going to a powerful concert or stepping into church—a rowdy, evangelical church. If the Head Space is needed for education, then the Heart Space is needed for inspiration and motivation.

  OUTSIDE GAME

  Once people become touched, moved, or inspired in the Heart Space, then they will want to take action. In fact, rather than being highly motivated by factual argument or dispassionate calculation, people are more likely to be inspired to take action based on their emotions. This is what happens in the grid’s lower right quadrant, where emotion and action meet: the “Outside Game.” This is the home of activists and volunteers. In this quadrant, people go to rallies, pester their friends to sign online petitions, organize door-to-door campaigns, “like” and share information on Facebook or Twitter, make donations, wear T-shirts, make T-shirts, affix bumper stickers to their cars, and display signs in their front yards. Here people are not taking actions based on their immediate, rational self-interest. Few are likely to get a job—whether it’s a contract position or a high-level government post—if their cause or candidate prevails. Sometimes the practical result of their efforts might be an increase in their own taxes (liberals) or cuts to social programs that they enjoy or rely upon (conservatives). Often, the lofty vision or goals that inspire their actions may not even be realizable in their lifetimes, if ever. But they are so moved that they take action based simply on what they feel is right—what moves them in their hearts.

  INSIDE GAME

  That brings us to the final quadrant, the upper right grid territory where reason meets action. I call this space the “Inside Game.” This is the home to the elected officials, paid lobbyists, and party operatives, including staff members at the legislative and bureaucratic levels. These are the people with the formal authority to make binding decisions, or they are the people who have enough power, standing, access, or influence to impact the behavior of the decision makers. In this space, there is very little room for misty-eyed idealism; this is the land of rational calculation—the world of threats and bribes. This is the natural home of the dealmaker. Cold-blooded maneuver and the necessary compromise are the currency of this realm.

  Because witnessing certain processes will turn one’s stomach, there are two things that one should never see while they are being made: sausage and laws. The Inside Game is where the political sausage-making happens. As unpleasant as this dimension of politics is, any cause or candidate that does not find an effective way to relate to the reality of the Inside Game will likely fail. At best, such crusades will be consigned to the margins of American life for a very long time.

  THE POLITICAL PROCESS REQUIRES that all four of the quadrants of the grid be activated at different stages.

  Sometimes the process moves in the order I have just laid out—from sober analysis and facts (Head Space), to resonant narratives that inspire support (Heart Space), to citizen participation (Outside Game), to official debate, deal making, and rule making (Inside Game). Sometimes it starts in the Heart Space with an impassioned call for change, which activists then pick up on a mass scale (Outside Game), which in turn catalyzes scholars and think tanks (Head Space), and ultimately leads to elected officials changing laws (Inside Game). The flow can shift back and forth between quadrants as well.

  More important than a particular order or progression is the balance among the grid sectors. The natural tendency is to try to figure out which quadrant is “the” most important of the four. The answer to that question is simple: each and every quadrant is the most important one at different stages in the process of making change.

  Each and every quadrant is the most important one at different stages in the process of making change.

  If one’s cause is driven purely by emotional outrage and presently lacks any workable policy solutions or constructive ties to people in City Hall or on Capitol Hill, then one should prioritize developing capacities in the top-two quadrants. On the other hand, one might have bookshelves full of smart policy proposals and know every legislator, aide, and intern at the state capitol but still find oneself losing key votes and decisions. In that case, breaking out of the top quadrants and finding allies who can sell the cause emotionally (Heart Space) and build passionate public enthusiasm for it (Outside Game) will be necessary. The key is to achieve a dynamic balance—striving for a kind of “full-spectrum dominance” across all four quadrants.

  Next, I will use this framework to reexamine and shed new light on the events and phenomena described at length in the previous chapters.

  OBAMA:

  CAMPAIGNING VS. GOVERNING

  At the start of the 2008 campaign season, Senator Hillary Clinton was eager to own the top half of the grid. She presented herself as an ultra-competent policy wonk (Head Space) who would be “ready on day one” as a master of Washington politics (Inside Game).

  But Obama adroitly positioned himself as the candidate of the bottom half. As easy as it is today to dismiss the hope-and-change phrase as a corny cliché, much of the work in 2007 and 2008 was simply convincing people that change was even feasible. That task required overcoming cynicism, reviving a sense of possibility, and getting people to shake off the funk of the Bush years.

  Such work is
handled best by someone who knows how to touch hearts and move the masses. That person, in 2008, was Senator Barack Obama.

  First of all, Obama personified resonant communication, in every way. In his own understated way, he was as much performance artist as political candidate. He spoke poetically; he owned the stage and embodied the narrative, transforming his personal biography into a powerful statement about the strength and beauty of America itself. He was and is a beautiful man, inside and out, with a beautiful family. It is true that in the middle of most of his speeches, he would slog through a ton of policy detail. But nobody left telling her or his friends and neighbors about that. Obama would begin and close every speech in a moving and heartfelt way, and that is what people remembered.

  Obama did not carry the weight of inspiring the country all by himself, either. His cultural and artistic sensibility touched something in other artists. They jumped into the mix in unprecedented and remarkable ways.

  Everyone remembers the famous Will.i.am video, “Yes We Can,” which got millions of views on YouTube. Most people watching the video probably assumed the oratory that Will.i.am sampled came from an Obama victory speech. But it did not. Obama gave the speech in the depths of defeat; after his rival Clinton got misty-eyed in a diner, Obama fell in the polls by more than twenty points in forty-eight hours and lost to her in New Hampshire. By letting herself become vulnerable (Heart Space!), Clinton pulled off one of the great upsets in the history of presidential primary politics. Defeated, Obama walked out and gave the “Yes We Can” address—as a concession speech. But Will.i.am and other artists were so impressed by Obama’s strength and determination that they jumped in, remixed it, added music, and presented Obama to the world as a poised and powerful leader. Everyone just assumed they must have been looking at a winner.

  That is the power of the Heart Space. The appeal of music, celebrity, and film can overrun stodgy political realities and transform them. The cold mathematics of politics left Obama a loser, but the magic of artistic expression stole that moment away from Clinton and helped turn Obama back into a winner.

  Other artists played important roles, too:

  • Comedienne Tina Fey eviscerated GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin week after week on Saturday Night Live, essentially making Palin unelectable. Humor is an important tool in expressing and shaping emotions.

  • The “Obama Girl” video, in which a beautiful songstress declares, “I got a crush on Obama,” introduced the freshman senator to millions of people who were beyond the reach of ordinary politics.

  • Shepard Fairey’s iconic “Hope” posters helped to create the heroic mythos that enveloped the candidate. Thousands adapted the image in creative ways and spread the meme even further.

  • And of course, there was the Obama “Rising Sun” logo—the symbol of the campaign. Its power is rarely mentioned in popular campaign histories, which focus mainly on voter turnout strategies and daily campaign tactics. But at the street level and in popular culture, the logo became the Nike swoosh of politics, turning Obama into the ultimate aspirational brand.

  After the election, just before the inauguration, the artists came out in force. At the “We Are One” concert, the world’s glitterati arrived to celebrate and perform—from Stevie Wonder, to U2, to Beyoncé. (Unfortunately, that concert was the last time the full glory of the artistic community was marshaled in service to the cause.)

  Obama Campaign Reinvents and Dominates Outside Game

  The campaign was extraordinary, not just because it dominated the Heart Space. It also dominated—and even reinvented—the Outside Game.

  There were big, super rallies where tens of thousands of people would come out, as if going to a big tent revival or a major concert or sporting event. These were emotional events, not intellectual ones. The rallies and mass gatherings helped to fuel and define the campaign itself.

  The campaign was designed to capture such enthusiasm, thanks in part to Chris Hughes, who decamped from Facebook to lend his support to Obama for America. He built an interactive campaign platform called MyBarackObama.com. Some of the hardened operatives and bean counters who ran the campaign’s GOTV logistics thought of the website as a kind of cute and fluffy add-on. In a purely technical sense, perhaps it was.

  But as a mechanism for mass-producing goodwill and creating momentum, MyBarackObama.com played an invaluable role. Anybody in America could immediately sign up, join a campaign-related group, or create one, and be a part of something historic. Even if the person didn’t do anything after she signed up, she still felt like she was a part of something special. The psychological impact on Obama’s broad base of supporters was electrifying.

  Also, Harvard University lecturer and United Farm Workers veteran Marshall Ganz helped to create a training program for campaign volunteers called Camp Obama. It trained thousands of people in 2007 and then sent them all over the country, with no money, offices, or official titles. On their own, those graduates spread out and built massive networks and campaign organizations, in a remarkable act of distributed electioneering. Those organizers made it nearly impossible for Clinton to win caucus states.

  A deeper look at the grid reveals something important. The upper half of the grid (Head Space + Inside Game) is vital to institutionalizing and formalizing social change. It is about economics and politics, as those are traditionally understood. It is key to getting formal decision makers to codify and implement structural reforms. In the language and context of the Obama 2008 campaign, we could say that the top half of the grid is about “change.”

  The lower half of the grid (Heart Space + Outside Game) is vital to freeing the human spirit and unleashing the energy necessary to make any change. It is about the cultural and spiritual dimensions of the movement. It is key to nurturing a sense of greater possibilities and getting millions of inspired people to take action together. In the language and context of the Obama 2008 campaign, the bottom half of the grid is about “hope.”

  Both halves of the grid need each other. As a practical matter, elections are the bridge between hope and change, particularly between the Outside Game and Inside Game. The relationship between the two halves can be symbiotic: hope is usually a prerequisite for positive change, and positive change can help sustain hope. The power of the 2008 Obama campaign came from the fact that it touched on all four quadrants—the need for economic and political reform (“change”), as well as the belief in a brighter future that included spiritual renewal (“hope”).

  Hope is usually a prerequisite for positive change, and positive change can help sustain hope.

  Winning the election theoretically put Obama and the movement that elected him into a position to fortify dominance of the lower half of the grid, while conquering the upper half—maintaining hope, while delivering change.

  But such was not to be. As Team Obama attempted to master the Inside Game, the color and dynamism of the Outside Game collapsed. As we have discussed earlier, there were no marches or protests in support of the agenda. Even the grassroots seemed more interested in “access” than activism. Mega-rallies that featured inspirational artists or Obama were no more.

  And as the administration wrestled with the policy nuance of the Head Space, the passionate fires of the Heart Space were left unattended. President Obama began to sound more and more like a regular politician. Perhaps that was inevitable. As Mario Cuomo, former mayor of New York City, said long ago, “We campaign in poetry. We govern in prose.” Still, one imagines that other artists, celebrities, and spokespersons could have been enlisted to continue some of the cultural and spiritual aspects that made the 2008 campaign so resonant.

  Unfortunately, Obama and his supporters decamped for the top half of the grid, abandoning the lower half. That move left the door open for the Tea Party backlashers to sweep into the lower quadrants uncontested in 2009—and take over practically the entire grid in 2010.

  THE TEA PARTY

  As Americans continued to suffer the
ongoing consequences of the financial crisis, and as the nurturing aspects of the hope-and-change campaign dissolved, the pain in America’s heart intensified. Everyday people needed their sense of loss and fear acknowledged. People needed a story that made sense of the pain.

  Into the vacuum, the Tea Party swooped. But rather than trying to restore hope, the Tea Partiers were promoting a different emotion in the Heart Space: fear. They hit the panic button: How the hell did we lose control of everything, and let this Negro, socialist, atheist, Muslim become the president of the United States? Is he even an American citizen? Where is his birth certificate? Our liberties are under attack!

  The Tea Party broadcast its extreme emotions—think of the shouting and weeping of certain TV pundits—twenty-four hours a day via Fox News and the right-wing blogosphere. Video pranksters started using their craft—not to inspire people, as Will.i.am and “Obama Girl” did for Obama—but to destroy people. ACORN paid the price, as did Shirley Sherrod. So did I.

  These are the messages that Tea Partiers wrote on their signs and placards—and took into the streets of America.

  HITLER GAVE GOOD SPEECHES, TOO

  IT’S THE MARXISTS, STUPID!

  T.E.A. = TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY

  WELCOME TO AMERICA . . . NOW SPEAK ENGLISH!

  CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT!

  SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, OBAMA!

  WE ARE A CHRISTIAN NATION!

  OBAMA—

  BRINGING AMERICA INTO THE 3RD WORLD

  $3 BILLION TO ACORN, $0 TO PROTECT OUR BORDER!