Reply #60: The dynamics transcend the "issues"

[pat_k]

Positions on the issues constitute a variable that can -- and should be -- ignored as we evaluate what the fate of the Hackett campaign tells us about the forces we are up against in the fight to take back our country. (i.e., the essential dynamics -- insider v. outsider; weakness v. strength -- exemplified by Hackett's withdrawal transcend any specific issue).

We are so conditioned to think in terms of issues that asserting "issues don't matter" undoubtedly sounds like heresy. I'll try to summarize the ideas that lead to this "heresy."

Issues are the name of the game when politics is a spectator sport
A vast majority of Americans -- including many who consider themselves to be involved -- view politics as a spectator sport. Most simply don't have anyone in their social sphere who provides a model for effective citizen action. Local associations have provided such models in the past, but such groups are few and far between these days. For the most part, Americans believe that "people like me just don’t do that" or they believe that voting or volunteering for candidates is the only way they can affect policy

When your only contribution is to pick leaders off a menu, the "ingredients of the dish" are of paramount importance.

When people connect with each other, they effectively represent their common interests
The way people talk about our government exposes the degree to which it is viewed as something "cooked up" by others, rather than something of our own creation. When the public institutions that enable our demands to become reality are so dysfunctional, it can be difficult to see how our power manifests itself -- but that does not mean we do not have power.

Our power to protect our interests is rooted in our connections with each other. If you doubt this, consider the American Legion, which is not exactly an organization that one would apply the label "progressive" to. Despite the "conservative" label, members of American Legion Posts across the nation were instrumental in designing and passing the most progressive legislation we have seen in decades: the GI Bill.

By contrast, consider the AARP, which is made up of lot's of people who got together based on status (being old together). Unlike the American Legion, members of AARP do not meet and connect with each other in local associations. It is basically a top down "strategic" organization in which the members are largely viewed as game pieces. Because member participation is limited, the AARP does things like support Bush's prescription drug horror.

The rewards of changing the "rules of the game" can be far greater than enacting a specific change
Regardless of the participants (elected officials, candidates, analysts, neighbors) most conversations about politics reflect the assumption that citizen participation is limited to electoral politics -- i.e., candidates market themselves and their solutions and we "buy" (help elect) the package we like best. In other words, we are seen consumers of a product we don't help to create.

In a democracy, it almost goes without saying that the chances of making progress toward “a more perfect union” increase with the number and diversity of the people engaged in the process. In other words, the quality of the "products" (solutions to our common problems) are directly related to the number of people involved in thier creation.

As increasing numbers of people transform their relationship to power and expand their participation beyond electoral politics, they create conditions that allow us to do a better job of shaping a responsive government that serves our common interests.

A leader who inspires people to stand up fight for their interests is a more powerful agent of change than a leader who is focused on enacting specific programs or policies. (akin to teaching someone to fish v. giving them a fish)

Attributes that inspire citizens to connect and participate are more important than positions on issues
I knew Howard Dean was "my guy" when, in answer to the standard "How will you get your <whatever> proposal enacted?" he said something like "If I'm elected, it will be because Americans stood up and proved they have the power to take back the country. It will be their efforts that make <whatever> happen"

It was the first time in years I heard a politician assert something that reflected a deeply-held belief that this game is really about us, not them. It was my first indication that when he said "You Have the Power," it was not empty rhetoric. He believed it. Nothing I have heard from him since has contradicted that. His belief in people-power inspired people to believe in themselves and to discover their power through action.

Although it may be impossible to identify the attributes that enable some leaders to wake people up to their own power, we can be sure of one thing: when such leaders emerge and gain support, they will face intense opposition from the beltway "insiders."