athelind | Fertilizing the Grass Roots

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?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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

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]}!

Edited 2010-01-21 20:40 (UTC)

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". ;)

I still kinda want specific links on that Queen thing!

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

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

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.

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.

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."

... 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.

Everyone step back and take a deep breath, please.

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.

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.

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. ;)

Fertilizing the Grass Roots

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

no subject

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.

Re: Quote from Bohemian Rhapsody Here.