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

... 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.