Fertilizing the Grass Roots

[athelind]

Okay, kids. Politics time.

First: On Elections.

rodant_kapoor just said everything that needs to be said about yesterday's special election in Massachusetts.

Second:On Activism.

I've heard some comments that there's more to participating in democracy than just saying, "I voted; now it's their turn to sort things out."

I really want to do things. I really want to make my voice heard. I really want to do that activism thing.

Unlike Billy Joel's "Angry Young Man", I haven't "passed the age / of consciousness and rightous rage". I just don't know what to do with it.

The only leads I've found in that direction have been canvassing, either door-to-door, on the phone, or stuffing envelopes.

You cannot convince me that this is significant or effective.

I don't treat political solicitors any differently than I do commercial or religious ones. At the door, on my phone or in my mailbox, they are an uninvited intrusion on the sanctity and privacy of my home.

I will politely turn away a political canvasser on my doorstep. I will rather less politely inform an unsolicited caller that I am "not interested". I will briefly glance at political mail to see if the candidate in question expresses views that coincide with my own, and if so, I'll put their name on my list of candidates to consider.

I almost always assume that the claims being made for or against Proposition X or Candidate Y are unreliable, at best, and flat-out lies, at worst. When election time rolls around, I troll the web looking for independent analyses and recommendations, but I don't trust unsolicited opinions.

And this is my reaction for the canvassers that I agree with. I have a hard time believing that this kind of activity is actually going to change anybody's mind.

Am I just stubborn? Am I too cynical to believe that J. Random Doorbell might be swayed by the presentation of reasonable arguments and evidence-based debunkings of misinformation? Or, despite my adherence to Colbert's memorable statement that "Reality has a well-known liberal bias", am I too cynical to believe that "my side" will provide me that kind of good, solid data to present?

Am I just an antisocial jerk who likes to hang up on people and slam doors in their face?

Really, are independent voters any more eager to have zealots idealists concerned citizens pounding on their door or ringing them up in the middle of dinner or the latest episode of Supernatural than Your Obedient Serpent is?

Heck, if I were an "independent" rather than a liberal technocrat, I'd probably wind up voting for the party that bothered me the least.

I suppose this boils down to two questions:

One, are my door-slamming habits atypical?

Two, what kinds of "grass-roots activity" are out there that don't include pestering the neighbors?

---

Comments

[yasha-taur.livejournal.com]

One of the reasons that the Republicans have been on a winning streak over the last few decades has been that they have done a much better job of 'organizing their base'. And sometimes, this does mean doing the door-to-door and phone calls. Sometimes, by doing this, you can break through some of the other sides distortions. Like any other organizing like this, there will be a 90-percent-plus 'failure' rate, but the few that you 'get to' can make a difference.

[leonard-arlotte.livejournal.com]

I've considered similar things, and this is what I've come up with.

If you want to influence politics, you have to get involved with it. To get started, try the ground floor. Look to attend city or county council meetings. Go to town hall meetings that are actually representative of the town, rather than just being a political stunt. Find out what the local issues are and speak your voice on them.

After a while of particpation, you may look into getting elected into a position in local government. Frequently these positions are 'part time', as in you aren't expected to be spending all your time in the office, but rather attend the council meetings, and attend official functions.

Once in the door like that, you can start looking at moving up the food change. Local --> state --> federal. Congresscritters often have humble beginnings in local government. Alternately, if you have gained the attention of a recently elected official, you might get an appointment to an office in which you have expertise.

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

I heard the Republicans won in MA because the Democratic candidate was a fucking idiot. When asked about why she wasn't more aggressively campaigning she said something to the effect that she didn't want to stand outside of Fenway Par in the cold shaking hands. Which, in MA, means you don't really want to win anything.

As to the second issue . . . I struggle with that one, myself. I want to participate but all the avenues of participation are pretty vapid.

However, door-to-door stuff works. It won't convince anyone dead set against you, or probably very many on the fences, but what it does is remind voters in the base that you exist and it's important to go out there and get 'em! It does help to energize the base, as they say.

But, as was said, if you want to participate more, go down to your party neighborhood meetings (odds are, there's a party meeting within a few blocks of where you live about once a month - no, really!) and contribute. Go down to the city hall and make yourself heard! They often have public hearings where informed people (and just about anyone else) can make their "point". The best way to influence a politician is to *know them*, and party participation can easily lead to that, etc., etc.

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

Tho' I will further add if you get involved in party politics, prepare to be disappointed. Even at the most local of levels, things tend to be dominated by wealthy prima donnas and it gets WORSE the higher up you go.

Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

That's one reason why I was thinking more in terms of influencing the way the wind blows, rather than trying to get myself in a position where I can blow harder myself. There are enough blowhards in politics already, and always have been.

Maybe I don't want to be an activist. I want to be an AGITATOR!

On the other claw, maybe I'd find party politics more tolerable if I signed up with the GREENS, rather than the Democrats. Even door-to-door/phone work might seem less repugnant if it's informing people that they have more options than TweedleDem and TweedleGOP.

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

The problem with the Internet is that EVERYONE can agitate. There's so much agitation that it forms this background noise! Finding a way to agitate that raises you above the pack is hard, at least for me. (The irony of Internet agitation is you've got be an asskisser for it work, ugh, hehe. Not that I'm bitter.)

But I responded to write about the Greens. I can't say for the ones in California, but I couldn't work with the ones in Maine. And I tried. There, in the group I was part of, things were dominated by this one crazy old organic farmer who would drive out anyone who didn't fit her bizarro world fucked up ideology. I mean, I know I'm crazy but she was just off her rocker. I actually preferred working with the Democrats in South Carolina because they were generally sane, even when I didn't agree with them.

That said, if you're gonna get involved in politics, yeah, it should be something you believe in.

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

That said, if you're gonna get involved in politics, yeah, it should be something you believe in.

Yea, but I don't think the voters in this country are quite ready for "Sacrifice The Wealthy To The Dragon Gods" platform yet.

YET.

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

It'd be a slight compromise solution for me, but if you find the dragon, I'll find the wealthy. ;)

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Except you don't have those options. You're in an inevitable and inescapable two-party system, and third-parties are nothing but a trap that cause your vote to be wasted - and thus, help the election of the party *furthest* from your ideals.

If you like the Democrats more than the Republicans, and you decide to vote Green because they're FURTHER from the Republicans, you're an idiot who is helping the Republicans (your least-favourite party, remember) beat the only people who can compete with them.

The same happens if you think the Republicans aren't fascist or racist enough and you vote Constitution Party or Libertarian Party to get even further away from the Democrats: You're an idiot, and you're helping the people you disagree with most get elected by voting *against* the people who most closely match your position.

The USA is a two-party system. You can vote for one party, for the other party, or for "favour my enemies but don't support my friends".

See Icon.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Thank you for making my point for me.

My vote's been wasted for most of my adult life, as "the center" has gotten pulled farther and farther to the Right.

Re: See Icon.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Not "wasted". You're just stuck with the choice of "bad" and "worse", and the important thing is to always, always, always vote "bad" in that case.

There is no "good". You're told there is "good" by people who are either bad at math or deliberately misleading you to help "worse". "Bad" or "worse", your only two choices, and you need to never, ever, ever forget it.

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

Actually, you DO have that option. If you vote for a major party because you're scared of the other party, you're a coward. I know of no other way to say it. The only way democracy works is if people vote their conscience, if they vote for the person they thing is really best. If you vote on any other grounds, you're the victim of blackmail.

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

The third party cannot win. It's a mathematically inevitable consequence of your backwards-ass poorly-designed system. By voting for the third party, all you're doing is denying a vote to the *REAL* party who most closely matches you, and thus aiding the REAL party that you like less to win.

You might want to do that from time to time, and it's slightly more pointed than simply staying home, but don't kid yourself by thinking your third party *can* win. They can't. You're in America, that's by design, and in order to change it, a party that wasn't benefitting from it (which is to say, a third party) would have to win. And they can't.

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

[leonard-arlotte.livejournal.com]

Actually, a third party CAN win. However, it requires one of the two predominant parties to completely piss off its contituent base, and for someone very popular to come along who is willing to push the agenda of the third party, and isn't a nutball.

Unfortunately the last person to do this successfully was Abraham Lincoln, with the Republican party.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

That two-party division is only as impregnable as you claim at the national, Executive level, because of the peculiarities of the electoral College. At the Legislative level, and the state and local levels, independents and third parties can and do win seats.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

And a third-party legislator, whether in state or federal politics, is meaningless unless they happen to be the one swing vote between the parties.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Well, y'know, if you have progressive values, and elect a legislator from a progressive third party, he's going to tend to caucus with the more progressive of the two big parties, and cast his vote for the progressive bills that come up -- so he'll still be voting the way you want him to, and is MORE likely to do that than a more "centrist" candidate from the less-regressive mainstream party.

Meanwhile, in a Parliamentary system, a candidate from a minor party will be equally meaningless unless they, too, enter a coalition with one of the Big Guns.

Let's quote a Canadian band instead of a British one:

[athelind.livejournal.com]

You can fight
Fight without ever winning
But never, ever win
Win without a fight.

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

Well, you're just factually wrong. Third parties win fairly often in state and local elections, which due to the federal nature of US government is pretty substantial. I know that many people seem to think the only office of importance in the United States is President, but that's not actually true. I tell people who want to get involved in politics that local politics is often where it's at – you have a much better chance of influencing it than on a state or national level and because of the federal nature of our system, communities have surprising amounts of power. But just because a third party can't win the Presidency doesn't mean that they can't win anywhere, and this is even more true with states that allow citizen referendum where third parties can quite successfully campaign on issues.

Second, third parties serve a traditional role in US democracy. If you've got a third party constantly sucking 5% of the voting population, or even 2%, of the voting population away from one of the big parties, this is a huge deal. It serves as a warning to whatever party the third party is ideologically closest to that they're closing the core. Part of the reason the Democratic Party in the US is so impotent is because they have largely ignored the needs of people who have gone over to the Green or Peace and Justice parties (the Libertarian Party, I believe, draws about the same from would-be Democrats and Republicans, and is a wash, which is why it gets ignored). The people who care about politics enough to join a third party would otherwise be your most committed members, which is the reason why the Republicans did that whole “Contract with America” to get people from Ross Perot's party back into their camp. These really aren't the people you want in third parties, they're the people who have the drive and energy needed to “energize the base”, which is the key to victory. Third parties serve this function quite openly as a matter of tradition.

I could go on, but I'm not going to. By serving up the two biggest issues – you're factually wrong and there is a traditional function that the third parties serve in the two party system – I believe my point is made clearly.

And what can I say? At least we're not CANADIAN and having our governments jumping through hoops for the Queen of England! Talk about something that makes a mockery out of democracy and law!

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

The fact that you think the Queen Of Canada (who happens to also be the Queen Of England And Several Other Places at the moment) has any kind of real role in government is crazy. Just about as crazy, in fact, as claiming that a third party can win at the federal level.

But you don't claim that. Instead, you retreat back to *my* position and agree with me that the only reason you should ever consider a third party is to punish a real party and convince a real party to win your vote back to them.

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

And thus you are revealed! Another Canadian arrogantly talking about things they don't know about and ignoring points that are inconvenient to them! ;)

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Play nice, kids, or I'll have to freeze the thread.

cpxbrex, you are officially the target of the Prove-It Gun: please provide links to your allegations about the Queen's interference in the operations of the Canadian government.

As they say on Wikipedia, ^{[citation needed]}!

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm done. He just lost me when he ignored the part where I said that third parties get people elected and are meaningful on state and local issues directly. He also ignored everyone else who said that. It demonstrated to me that he's quite willing to twist words and ideas to make his "point". ;)

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

I still kinda want specific links on that Queen thing!

Like Descartes said: "I link, therefore I am."

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

Twice in the past twelve months, the Governor General of Canada, Michaëlle Jean, who is the representative of the Queen of England in Canada, has prorogued the Canadian Parliament using something called a “reserve power”. A reserve power is one of those fiddly little remnants of monarchy. Since about 1920, the governor-generals have not been advised by the English government but the local government, but the authority of the office is monarchical in origin, the office is appointed by the Queen of Canada, who is of course the Queen of England, too.

Oh, hell, here's a Wikipedia link, hehe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Uh, no. STEPHEN HARPER said "please to be doing this now", and Michaelle Jean has, twice, said that it's not the place of the Governor General to interfere in the functioning of government.

In the same way that Royal Assent to a bill is a rubber stamp, the calling of elections *and* the proroguing of parliament are rubber stamp events, and Jean has been refusing to *break* the tradition of the GG agreeing with whatever the Government asks her to use her "official but meaningless" powers for.

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

Sorry, that link just covered the first proroguing of the government in 12 months. The second case was that the Governor General of Canada – the Queen's person in the Canada, appointed by the Queen – was this month where the government was prorogued for two months to stop budget talks. I'm looking for a good link that sums everything up, but the move has been controversial and it's really looking like the Harper government in Canada is leaning on proroguing to stop things from happening he doesn't like. Here in the US, we have nothing, absolutely nothing, so contrary to democracy. If you Google Canada proroguing you'll get a bunch of current articles about, y'know, various protests and stuff about the proroguing and they'll talk about the crisis from which you'll get the salient details – but on a quick search I wasn't able to find something that summed it all up together.

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

You've got it mostly right, except you put the blame and power on the GG and the Queen, when actually they're doing exactly what they've always done: Not take sides, and use their "official powers" exactly as they're asked to by the government.

For a US equivalent, consider that the President is not allowed to appear before Congress to give the State Of The Union speech unless invited to by the Speaker of the House. What happens if the Speaker doesn't invite him, some year? Nobody knows, because the Speaker will *always* invite him. The Speaker doesn't ACTUALLY have the power to stop the State Of The Union.

For an example of the Queen's representative interfering in government, what you want is the King/Byng affair, in 1925, where the Governor General did *not* do as Parliament asked.


The fact that Harper is abusing an obscure rule of parliamentary government doesn't make it Jean's fault for saying "I've been asked to do this, my job as ceremonial Head Of State is to do what I'm asked, so I'm doing it. If you have an issue with this, take it up in an election."

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

... what?

I say: Going Green is stupid. The best you can accomplish is to make *your best choice* lose, which might occasionally be a decent threat to use against your best choice. Just don't delude yourself into thinking your third party matters except as a threat to a real party.

You say: Third parties totally matter! You can use them as a threat to get a real party to move in your direction! And you're Canadian and the Queen runs your country!

I say: The fuck? Queen doesn't run country, and you're repeating what I said but you seem to think it will work better than it actually does in the real world.

You say: Canadian! Canadian! Arguments cannot have merit because Canadian! Beep Beep Ribby Ribby!


Care to rewind and try that again? Maybe try not being inane, and making making a little but of sense, this time? It would be a welcome change.

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Everyone step back and take a deep breath, please.

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Meanwhile, the idea that "third parties don't matter" only holds water if you think that the Presidential election is the only thing in US politics that matters.

There are plenty of people in the Untidy States who make that mistake, but it Just Ain't So.

If you just look at the Chief Executive position, CANADA was a "two-party system" from 1935 to 2006.

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

If you look at the Chief Executive position, Canada's been a no-party system for hundreds of years.

But part of the problem is that you've mistaken the Prime Minister for anything other than the MP who has the most MPs on his side, and that a minority of MPs can make a *huge* difference.

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

But that's not an honest assessment of what I said. Because I also said, and so did other people, that on state and local elections, third party candidates can win. There are a fair number of Greens and independents and Freedom Party people elected to city, county and state governments. I also said that due to the particular nature of US federalism, local governments aren't anything to sneeze at. And you ignored it when I said it and you ignored it when other people said it. What you did was cherry pick your points (and I also believe in a very manipulative and self-serving way) while ignoring anything that is contrary to your position.

If you'd been more open to admitting that your position was not entirely correct, that there might be issues you hadn't considered, I would have gladly talked at great length about it. But it became clear that you had no intention of respecting the positions of the people you're talking with. Well, not really talking with – ranting at. When it became clear you had no intention of discussing the issue but merely wanted to vent your spleen, I admit I turned to sarcasm. ;)