Welp, I’ve been served. We’ve all been served. I’m going to have to grind my teeth and read Prof. Eitan Hersh’s book, “Politics is for Power: How to Move Beyond Political Hobbyism, Take Action, and Make Real Change”. And then I’ll have to get out of the house more often.
Many college-educated people think they are deeply engaged in politics. They follow the news—reading articles like this one—and debate the latest developments on social media. They might sign an online petition or throw a $5 online donation at a presidential candidate. Mostly, they consume political information as a way of satisfying their own emotional and intellectual needs. These people are political hobbyists. What they are doing is no closer to engaging in politics than watching SportsCenter is to playing football.
“College-Educated Voters Are Ruining American Politics” – Eitan Hersh, The Atlantic
Now, I would say that I’ve been involved in face-to-face politics; but not on a day-to-day, prolonged basis for quite a while … probably since I had kids. That’s a major factor: Many times I’ve felt like I’ve been the only person between the ages of 25 and 65 at a rally or canvass. Where’s my age cohort? Probably with the kids — or avoiding the kids, but in any event living their lives in that orbit. Who can blame them?
And I always imagined that this blog — and social media in general — would be best as a reflection and a report of things we were doing in meat-space. Back when we started BMG, I was going to GBIO meetings, and Cambridge ward meetings at the encouragement of the recently-defeated Presidential candidate John Kerry, who told people to build back the party from the ground up. That was a lifetime ago — literally two kids ago. Life intervenes, as they say; that’s not an excuse, that’s just an excuse. Now I’ve managed to get myself onto Arlington Town Meeting, so woot for me.
There’s a smart person I know who grew up playing a lot of video games. And she said once that they make you feel entitled, because you feel like you’re doing something, like you’re accomplishing something, and the game gives you that satisfaction. But in reality, you’re not doing anything! Similarly, by game-ifying social interaction — clicks! new comments! engagements! — Twitter, Facebook, and blogs (old-fashioned as they are) became substitutes for real-world action. They have replaced relational politics, the face-to-face that’s necessary to break down walls, build trust and build actual real-life power to change things. So these self-satisfying forms of “engagement” may be useful to those who would keep progressives penned-up, in blue-states and blue bubbles.
But that stuff is scary, and inconvenient. (And actually right now — impossible.). Honestly, I don’t love canvassing (except when I do); and I’m not super-gregarious (except when I am); I don’t like talking with people I don’t know (except when I do), who aren’t like me (except in the ways that they are), certainly not about politics (except when I do). But this is the job that’s in front of us. And it’s normal, and even reassuring, and yes, empowering — even as we’re required to be vulnerable and risk losing.
Does this quote by philosopher Martha Nussbaum sound like politics-via-social-media?
Being a human means accepting promises from other people and trusting that other people will be good to you. When that is too much to bear, it is always possible to retreat into the thought, “I’ll live for my own comfort, for my own revenge, for my own anger, and I just won’t be a member of society anymore.” That really means, “I won’t be a human being anymore.”
You see people doing that today where they feel that society has let them down, and they can’t ask anything of it, and they can’t put their hopes on anything outside themselves. You see them actually retreating to a life in which they think only of their own satisfaction, and maybe the satisfaction of their revenge against society. But the life that no longer trusts another human being and no longer forms ties to the political community is not a human life any longer.
Brainpickings: “Philosopher Martha Nussbaum on How to Live with Our Human Fragility”
On balance, I imagine that Hersh could be a bit less judgey, a bit more encouraging for people who find it difficult to get out of the house for various reasons; who are shy; or reticent. But he’s right — this isn’t simply a thing for “political dorks”, for the kinds of people who do those kinds of things. It’s for everyone, and it has life and death consequences. It’s power.
In other words, be like Kate Donaghue. And less extremely on-line. And I can attest, that one hits a rib on the way in.
Christopher says
The word I’ve heard for what you describe is “slacktivism”. I think there needs to be several different opportunities for various people’s abilities and comfort levels. For example, I am not comfortable canvassing in part because I have felt less than welcome on the doorstep at times and don’t want to intrude on people if they don’t want it. I also know it’s important and want to contribute to the process so I nag campaigns to let me cut their turf for someone else to walk. I think any volunteer organization can adopt the sentiment expressed by St. Paul in Romans 12:
Or 1st Corinthians 12:
Charley on the MTA says
Well I do love those verses.
And likewise I think it’s important to give people a chance to speak for themselves, to discover their own power of ideas and language. An online forum should have *intellectual content.* And in-person politics *sometimes* has that; but a campaign tells you what to say. That grunt work needs to be done, but people need more than a list of talking points and a turf map; in-person politics needs relationships and listening.
Christopher says
I also meant to add that part of me very much wishes we had a civic culture that encourages this kind of active engagement. I would feel much more comfortable myself if we were so expecting and welcoming of people discussing politics that if we went a week during the height of campaigning without someone ringing our doorbell we would feel left out. It would also be helpful if we did not back into our corners so easily when discussing politics.
terrymcginty says
Someday.
Trickle up says
Social media are the opiates of the people.
Charley on the MTA says
… the methamphetamines, maybe
gmoke says
The obsessive focus on electoral politics has to be combined with practical efforts at mutual aid and support. Yes, vote. Yes, campaign. Yes, do door knocking. Yes, build your party. But also do what you can outside the electoral system – organize community gardens (we’re probably going to need the food), clean up the neighborhood, check in on the elderly, whatever you can do to build a community and not just a political party.
In these times when elections are not necessarily free, fair, and honest, we have to build local social structures that can deliver practical results to counter some of the effects of a political system that has been captured by big money boyz and grifters. Doing nothing but building the party for the next election and giving away all your power to elected representatives is not democracy, in my opinion. Democracy is do it yourself so do it yourself and with others.
To repeat, before I am totally slagged, Yes, vote. Yes, campaign. Yes, do door knocking. Yes, build your party. But also do what you can outside the electoral system down here on the ground that makes a difference today, even if it seems infinitesimally small.
Incidentally, when the lockdown first began, I was inspired by the wave of mutual aid efforts I saw and tried to collect them and disseminate them (my inclination and my skillset) but I have not seen anyone with a public platform do the same. I haven’t seen, for instance, a local TV station run a campaign to funnel those who want to do something to those who are organized to do so, I haven’t heard a politician do the same. Why not? My suspicion is that a) people with power tend not to recognize voluntary association and mutual aid when it is happening and b) if they do, it is a threat unless people with power can control it. Such direct action for practical purposes by ordinary people make people with power nervous because it makes their power superfluous and redundant.
Anyway, that is my observation and I can certainly be wrong. I might have missed power’s support for the flowering of mutual aid that the pandemic has brought forth and would be happy to hear about where it has actually happened.
couves says
I’ve had the same experience. Political divisions — even starkly divergent worldviews — fall away when we are working together for a better community. I’m optimistic that some good will come of this.
“Do the thing and you will have the power.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson
jconway says
I’m grateful to teach with the colleagues I have in the community I teach in. Today was one of the better weeks in feeling like I made a difference. I’ve gotten far more satisfaction in 3 years teaching then I did in the nearly 13 years I worked in either politics, policy, or law.
stomv says
Hersh gets at this too!
(Disclaimer: I’ve known Prof Hersh as a neighbor for many years, and we get along quite nicely. He even said a lovely thing about me at his bookreading at Brookline Booksmith a few months or a lifetime ago).
In his book Hersh discusses “The Russians of Brighton,” specifically Naakh Vysoky. It seems that the 1996 welfare reform bill stipulated that legal immigrants would be denied disability or food stamps if they weren’t citizens. Naakh got to work, training his neighbors to pass the citizenship test, so they could continue to afford to eat.
And it worked. He was the big macher. Naakh later flexed his political muscle to swing local political races.
He didn’t start showing up to canvasses. He started by doing really hard, stressful, complex work with no benefit to him, just to his neighbors. Only later did he leverage that trust into political power.
Read the book.
Christopher says
Hey – long time, no “see”!