People, We Have the Power to Choose Our Leaders and Our Path or Succumb to Powerlessness
Those on the Far Left need to get some more empowering messages and rhetoric. The Far Left has valid criticism for the Liberal/Progressive Left, Center Left, and all of the Right, but the Far Left has beat a dead horse with messages and rhetoric that demoralize the People of the United States and emphasize powerlessness.
I'm not pushing for dehumanizing or armed violent revolutionary rhetoric. Nor do I want to discourage criticism of privilege and bigotry in all their forms in society. The United States already has too much violence and an armed revolution, in my opinion, would just continue the cycle with a different flavor. This country does need its ugly tendencies exposed and treated.
Exposure without treatment doesn't empower citizens, though. Citizens become resigned to powerlessness. I get where the Far Left comes from: if they reveal "false consciousness" and lies, then the truth will fill the vacuum left after exorcising falseness. Alas, citizens need more than exposure therapy, which will risk injecting citizens with learned helplessness.
A couple weeks ago, I got into an Facebook group conversation about people needing to understand policy more and politicians should treat citizens as people who can understand. Long story short: I believe well-intentioned "everyday" people propose bad solutions to the Social Security "crisis" because they don't understand the basic concept of Social Security as insurance. Rather, everyday people think of social security as public assistance (like welfare, food stamps, etc).
The conversation spiraled outward to me arguing that if citizens understood the workings of policy accurately (at least conceptually), then elections could have better results. The other person argued that citizens shouldn't be expected to understand how things work. Citizens just need to know who's working for them, who's winning, who's losing, and if the citizen believes they're getting what they think they should get. I also made a remark or two that I thought the other person's viewpoint undersold what the electorate is capable of, and that we need to have more faith in the voters.
In the same Facebook group within the last couple days, an individual made an argument that the status quo continues because the American people buy into Max Weber's Protestant Work Ethic and the elites/Powers That Be keep down the every person. I had incited this response by arguing that the current status quo continues because the supposed elites and Powers That Be play Divide and Conquer with the everyday people. A lot of activists further fuel the electoral apathy by not caring enough to vote, being too disillusioned to vote, and all around believing that the elites and Powers That Be are in control of politics, business, and anything else that matters, keeping the everyday person down. All this despite, for all intents and purposes, the electoral system is the most democratic it has ever been for some populations (barring voter suppression by legislation & deception). Street activists need to get into electoral politics and regular everyday people should work to understand the government, policies, political moves, and look to get involved civically.
I had a conversation this past weekend with a couple friends about the ubiquitiousness of Facebook and Twitter, as you do while hanging out at a bar. One of the friends mentioned something about how Twitter still remains the best way to advertise something to the public, despite all the misgivings we may have about using these two forms of social media.
I brought up Mastodon, saying that Mastodon provides an interesting social media system/network which could possibly replace the likes of Facebook and Twitter. I tried selling them on the idea of Mastodon using the fact that the Sysop (system operator) or "council of operators" of a particular node can develop its own particular rules and only set up "treaties" with other nodes that share similar values (or not, if the Ops want to run things that way). This ability to make rules, adopt values, and choose node connections provides more potential for moral social media.
Maybe I could have described Mastodon better, more clearly, and in a compelling fashion. It had gotten late and the discussion happened at a bar, though. My friends could care less because I didn't sell them on it. I'm convinced that their lack of interest comes more from inertia, though, and a resignation that nothing can compete against Facebook or Twitter, especially a form of social media like Mastodon that doesn't have any inherent profit motive to it. Mastodon just provides a framework for social mediaing.
I tried working against their inertia by arguing that Mastodon could take over the social media space, if people like us put our energies into getting other people to adopt it. They used past examples of failed attempts: Google+, MySpace, Friendster, and other social media spaces that don't have the foundations and territory that Facebook and Twitter have developed.
I even made arguments based on the ambivalence we all feel about Facebook and Twitter, emphasizing the ability for Mastodon nodes to create rules and follow values. My arguments didn't phase them. To garner the footprint desired by them, for now and forever more until the government or some other social element does something, Facebook and Twitter remain the only option.
The conversation reached an interesting point here, though. Elites and the Powers That Be came into the discussion. Facebook and Twitter have loads of money and capital. The two social media platforms have the marketers and the personnel that know how to manipulate users and the population. Had we gotten to talking about Russian meddlers? Have we gotten to the point with social media that to try promoting something somewhere, we have to compromise and stay on a platform that creates so much ambivalence? Again, I pushed that with some effort, anyone, including us could work to get people to immigrate over to Mastodon. All it would take is effort, planning, and to build up some momentum.
But alas, the discussion ended with sighs of disbelief and resorting back to arguments based on the elites and The Powers That Be (apparently Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey when it comes to social media).
On one of the podcasts I listen to daily, The Daily Zeitgeist, the talking heads brought up a familiar talking point: That the two major political parties in the United States are no different from each other and that they're run by the elites and The Powers That Be. I could Tweet at them to try debating the issue, but I don't see it accomplishing anything.
Suffice to say, as much as the Democrat party doesn't go as far Left as I'd like, it still has enough to differentiate itself from the Republican party to make it redeemable, in my opinion. At least the Democratic tries to remain a "Big Tent" party rather than push for policies, tactics, and rhetoric that turns off the majority of the population with dog whistling. Once again, I found myself frustrated with hearing people in the United States using rhetoric that felt disempowering and giving up on some level. Aim for the sky, I guess, and blame the elites and Powers That Be when things remain less than ideal.
This article argues that having a strong Establishment in a party leads to smooth politics, at the cost of a high level of a democratic process. Such an argument leads to the counterpoint that the present has become a point at which true democratic process has reached a peak.
Arguably, the major two parties will likely continue to have the most realistic chance of winning foreseeable elections. Barring that end result, though, a purer democracy, the votes of people in the parties or participating in Open Primaries, will determine the results of primaries and what candidates get sent onward to the General Elections. This level of democracy in action became more salient when the Democratic party cut the power of superdelegates for the 2020 Democratic Primaries.
Unfortunately, since Trump has the status of POTUS incumbent and practically taken over the Republican Party in an autocratic fashion, it may not feel like a democracy if you vote in the Republican Primaries or the only the General Election. If you want to simulate a democracy, you can always vote for Bill Weld in the Republican Primary, I guess.
Anyone technically could run to be the Democratic candidate for President (and kinda are with about 21 running at this point) and any other office from village council member to city alderperson to mayor to state representative to US representative to governor to US senator. States also have some interesting electable positions like Attorney General and Secretary of State, too. These positions all play important roles, and you should research, campaign, and vote for all these positions (maybe even run!).
Since the tumult of the 1968 Democratic Primaries and Watergate, the Establishments have been losing their influence as the public distrust in politicians and the parties have grown. Excluding the time of the Democratic Superdelegates, the political press has stepped up to somewhat take on the role of party bosses, focusing and ignoring candidates the press favors or dislikes. Notice lately with the rise of electronic communication (e-mail, social media, blogs) leading to an explosion of expressing opinions and knowledge at an increase the likes never seen since Gutenberg invented the printing press.
A podcast the other day mentioned that with the decline of the Superdelegates, donations by small donors and big donors has taken their place for elevating candidates. Along with polls determining which Democratic Primary candidates make it to the first two debates, a semi-complex calculation counting unique donors that contribute to a candidate will help determine the candidates' point and clout accumulation to get on the debate stage. Money does a horrible job equalizing people, but by becoming a donor to a Democratic Primary candidate at this stage, you enter a vote to increase that candidates clout, reach, and opportunity (even just a one-time $5 or single $10 contribution to their campaign will help them reach that threshold).
Anyone can run for President of the United States. A candidate has to know how to run a good nation-wide campaign, including:
and the list goes on and on and on what a candidate must do and what resources they have to coordinate to make it through the campaign slugfest. Anyone off the street could run, but only a few will rise up to have a chance in the Primaries and in the General Election.
The same goes for US representatives, US senate seats up for grabs, and other elections, but maybe not as huge of a field (though, if they're smart, they'll work together with Presidential and other candidates and organizations). The Party organizations and committees may still play a large part in getting the candidates seen, heard, and taken seriously, but that's just money and organization. The DCCC provides a lot of money and organization, but in this day and age, with electronic media and communication along with the press trying to get the first scoop and post it up as fast as possible, us in the public and the press can play a big part in democratizing the process even more.
Living in a time when the United States has the most potential for democracy, the most chance for everyday people to have their voices heard, I hate to hear words and rhetoric that encourage powerlessness, disillusionment, and learned helplessness. I don't want to hear that your vote doesn't matter. I don't want to hear that the parties are practically the same (since we largely get to choose whom from those parties run in the General Election). I don't want to hear that larger forces, the elites, or the Powers That Be will ultimately decide things in the end. I don't want to hear it from the press, from the everyday people, or from politicians.
We need the press and politicians to inspire as many people as they can
We, the people, are powerful, especially when and if we come together to organize and rise up in support of a candidate and cause that we believe in (or at least believe in more than the worst evils). Our vote alone may not matter, but our vote combined with those we agree with makes a huge difference. A virtuous loop must form to build the energy of the election:
And this is where Howard Dean goes "Rah!" It's time to get involved, People!
[I want to acknowledge that voter suppression exists and effectively stops many people from voting. If you can help them vote, awesome, great. If these people can fight the forces working against them and get the vote, awesome, too.
In the end, though, I can't blame people who face the legal challenges of suppression for not getting excited and not getting their vote in. If, however, people who have the power to vote can inspire the suppressed to help out and if the suppressed have the motivation to help out, it will be much appreciated. If we can get the right people into office and policies and judgments into place, then maybe we can make voter suppression stories part of a dark past.
Another good way to fight voter suppression is to donate to Stacey Abrams' organization Fair Fight Action. I think Abrams even aims to have Georgia be subject to the testing rules of the Voting Rights Act again.]
If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee
You can also check me out on Twitter at @screwjaw for articles, short form stuff, and a higher frequency/volume of opinions and truth.!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment