I think one reason we have lost our "civic duty" in participating meaningfully is the endless amount of solicitations coming from all levels for all offices. The amount of money it takes to run a campaign is out of touch with the original intent our Constitutional creators wrote. The more petitions one signs, the more email solicitations in my junk box. There is an urgent call to overturn Citizens United!
28
The author well stated that "The problem is that hobbyism is replacing other forms of participation, like local organizing, supporting party organizations, neighbor-to-neighbor persuasion, even voting in midterm elections — the 2014 midterms had the lowest level of voter participation in over 70 years." Democratic Party voter turnout for 2018 may be better, but do not think for a second that Republicans (a) will not get their votes out and (b) will not do everything possible to deny the vote to people whom they feel are likely to vote Democrat. I took a look at the DNC's web page and found what I considered a very uninspiring collection of basic information with its sole purpose being to engender monetary contributions. There is nothing about organizing and actually getting involved. The Democrats are not going to take back the Senate or the House or state legislatures or governorships without an organized effort. Sixteen months is not that long to reinvent a vibrant grass roots political organization. The Indivisible Movement appears to be doing more at this point than the DNC, but its model is the Tea Party, which Democrats need not emulate. If the political hobbyists are going to be motivated by civic duty or by survival interest, then nevertheless they (we) will need someone in charge and that has to be the DNC. To my chagrin, I've not a lot of hope the DNC can get its act together.
44
Little discourse is better than no discourse at all. Besides, it is happening. At the coffeeshop, around the communal dinner table. The first step in political activism lies in having these conversations and in learning from others. Granted, there are so many issues to participate in that it is overwhelming. Still, it's a start. Massive change isn't going to happen overnight, but we are moving in the right direction.
26
Participatory democracies are messy business. They should be. Trump has made it an abattoir and that's not acceptable to most of us. We are reacting like the herd animals we are. What offends me was Hersh's view of us as monkey's who are seeking the rewards only found in a Skinner's Box.
21
All relevant levers of power in the country have been captured by members of the .01 percent (economic and social elite). That includes industry/business (of course), and government institutions, from the federal government (the presidency, Congress, the Supreme Court), to state houses, and city councils across the country.
Because of this, when the ruling elite pushes for a self-serving policy, the "government" (whether at the federal, state, or local level) is likely to pass legislation to implement that policy.
When the so-called 99-percent favors a policy that contrasts with the desires of the ruling elite, that policy has zero chance of becoming law (for the most part).
This I wrote above is a paraphrasing of plenty of studies about this subject (Google Princeton University, and Oligarchy to view one of them).
So basically we live in a fake (to use a work in vogue), or make-belief "democracy."
To really get a good grasp about the true nature of our system, I encourage people to read all they can about "Neoliberalism." Another good source is the work of the Late Sheldon Wolin (Google "Sheldon Wolin and Inverted Totalitarianism").
To understand the roles of our two corporate-controlled "Parties," think of them as a good-cop-bad-cop deception (or scam). Under both Parties, we're heading in the same direction (towards corporate state fascism). The Democratic party establishment's role is to play interference on behalf of the fascist Republican party.
Because of this, when the ruling elite pushes for a self-serving policy, the "government" (whether at the federal, state, or local level) is likely to pass legislation to implement that policy.
When the so-called 99-percent favors a policy that contrasts with the desires of the ruling elite, that policy has zero chance of becoming law (for the most part).
This I wrote above is a paraphrasing of plenty of studies about this subject (Google Princeton University, and Oligarchy to view one of them).
So basically we live in a fake (to use a work in vogue), or make-belief "democracy."
To really get a good grasp about the true nature of our system, I encourage people to read all they can about "Neoliberalism." Another good source is the work of the Late Sheldon Wolin (Google "Sheldon Wolin and Inverted Totalitarianism").
To understand the roles of our two corporate-controlled "Parties," think of them as a good-cop-bad-cop deception (or scam). Under both Parties, we're heading in the same direction (towards corporate state fascism). The Democratic party establishment's role is to play interference on behalf of the fascist Republican party.
24
Here here. I am not troubled by the "high mindedness" as some are; many minds have sunk too low. I believe that one sources of Trump's strength, if you can call it that, is exactly the kind voyeurism that the professor talks about: many Trump fans are exactly the kind of low reality hobbyists that are talked about here and furthermore, they live vicariously through hime the way football fans and rock stars live through their heroes, imagining it is them up there, giving it to the man.
9
I can't help but think that Eitan Hersh is so dismissive of the recent town halls because it most of the participants who show up are middle-aged and older (mostly white) citizens who are primarily freaked out about their health care. Booooring. Clearly not as "cool" as Black Lives Matter, apparently. And as for seriousness of intent, BLM has engaged in a lot of hobby-like "attention-getting" but has engaged very little in the way of them actually putting in the hard, dull work of coalition building, actual persuasion of those who might have doubts, and winning elections and elected offices. In fact, many young black activists proclaimed themselves as having been too "uninspired" to both to vote back in November 2016. Who knows if they will get their act in time by next year. Whereas I willing to bet my bottom dollar that every single one of the town hall attendees will show up to vote in 2018 and beyond.
35
Did this come across smug to anyone else? Is this where political science is as a discipline these days? I think the author said that since I care and am now more focused than ever on politics (not because I like it but because it matters) I am irrelevant and as a hobbyist my concerns are trifling matters. Furthermore my activities are contributing to the erosion of more progressive political parties who cannot get power because of a bunch of "hobbyists" running around looking for gratification. Huh?
If you want to really understand what is going on read Manuel Castells - forget this chap.
If you want to really understand what is going on read Manuel Castells - forget this chap.
41
Oy. Yet another trend story that has NO DATA to support it.
Have the hobbyists really replaced the activists? Yeah? How many? Starting from when?
Oh, no numbers you say?
Thanks, bye.
A waste of ink.
Have the hobbyists really replaced the activists? Yeah? How many? Starting from when?
Oh, no numbers you say?
Thanks, bye.
A waste of ink.
31
Most people can't make politics a career. The next best thing is if they can make it a hobby.
Find one thing that is important to you and work on it a little every week. Find actions that work for you. Talking to people face to face is better than on line. Getting people to sign petitions is better than signing them. Paper petitions are taken more seriously than electronic ones. Etc.
But the idea that some activism is a waste of time, but working for a party or some protests (but not all) are the only really meaningful ways to participate is nonsense.
The author does hint at some real dangers. Make an effort to verify that information you get is most likely true before you send it on, and let the recipient know what your level of confidence is. If Trump just said the opposite thing than he said yesterday, you can be very confident that he lied at least once. Primary sources are evidence. Secondary sources are hearsay. Be more cautious when you want to believe.
Your credibility, and the credibility of your allies is at stake.
Big news organizations are often caught if they lie outright, but they repeat incorrect common wisdom (like most Democrats voted for Iraq, which they didn't) often without correcting each other, and leave out a lot of important information (like TPP, for years).
Believing everything your team (Dem, Rep, G, L...) tells you is also a mistake. If the Parties were so smart things would be a lot better. When a party does the right thing, they will get votes.
Find one thing that is important to you and work on it a little every week. Find actions that work for you. Talking to people face to face is better than on line. Getting people to sign petitions is better than signing them. Paper petitions are taken more seriously than electronic ones. Etc.
But the idea that some activism is a waste of time, but working for a party or some protests (but not all) are the only really meaningful ways to participate is nonsense.
The author does hint at some real dangers. Make an effort to verify that information you get is most likely true before you send it on, and let the recipient know what your level of confidence is. If Trump just said the opposite thing than he said yesterday, you can be very confident that he lied at least once. Primary sources are evidence. Secondary sources are hearsay. Be more cautious when you want to believe.
Your credibility, and the credibility of your allies is at stake.
Big news organizations are often caught if they lie outright, but they repeat incorrect common wisdom (like most Democrats voted for Iraq, which they didn't) often without correcting each other, and leave out a lot of important information (like TPP, for years).
Believing everything your team (Dem, Rep, G, L...) tells you is also a mistake. If the Parties were so smart things would be a lot better. When a party does the right thing, they will get votes.
13
The president's despicable and violent video of himself beating CNN is the work of a lunatic. Freedom of the press is top priority in America and that includes MSNBC and CNN, the NYTimes, Washington Post and any other form of media. America is not Hitler's Germany and America is not a fascist country. Why hasn't the Republican Party impeached this man? He is sick and needs help.
29
I have seen the enemy and it is us, or so says Mr. Hersh but the truth is that the parties no longer spend their money supporting grass roots efforts. Either social media is the great liberator of the masses or it is creating armchair hobbyists, I wish people would make up their mind.
The problem isn’t that social media has created hobbyists it is that it ropes us all off in silos, bubbles of the like-minded where we don’t have to engage with people we disagree with or get to know them. This has led to being deaf to opposing points of view, viciously attacking the other side, questioning their morality, and demonizing them. Mr. Hersh’s hobbyist are citizens using new technology that he clearly doesn’t understand to to try participate as citizens in their democracy. It is new and like democracy itself it is messy. I hope in time we will work out some rules, and it will be less messy. Who knows maybe some tech wizard will come up with a way to bring people of different views together for civil discourse. Maybe pigs will fly someday.
Fasten your seat belts it is going to be a bumpy century.
The problem isn’t that social media has created hobbyists it is that it ropes us all off in silos, bubbles of the like-minded where we don’t have to engage with people we disagree with or get to know them. This has led to being deaf to opposing points of view, viciously attacking the other side, questioning their morality, and demonizing them. Mr. Hersh’s hobbyist are citizens using new technology that he clearly doesn’t understand to to try participate as citizens in their democracy. It is new and like democracy itself it is messy. I hope in time we will work out some rules, and it will be less messy. Who knows maybe some tech wizard will come up with a way to bring people of different views together for civil discourse. Maybe pigs will fly someday.
Fasten your seat belts it is going to be a bumpy century.
14
The few comments, pro or con, on this piece emphasize how little real work Americans are willing to put into addressing the very real problems our country faces.
7
So, You agree voters should be citizens, speak English and understand our values to participate in politics to avoid "political hobbyism" that got us a 2009-2017 president.
Would this mean you would castigate and expel liars and cheats, thieves and misuse of power exponents, crony payments and self-serving venal office holders such as Obama, Clinton, Kerry, Rice, Holder, Lynch, further down the chain Warren, Harris, Schumer, Cuomo, Brown... further yet Waters, Lee, Pelosi, Franken and stil further Brazil, Paneta. Wassermann-Schultz. Looks like a hobby has turned into a democrat family business.
Would this mean you would castigate and expel liars and cheats, thieves and misuse of power exponents, crony payments and self-serving venal office holders such as Obama, Clinton, Kerry, Rice, Holder, Lynch, further down the chain Warren, Harris, Schumer, Cuomo, Brown... further yet Waters, Lee, Pelosi, Franken and stil further Brazil, Paneta. Wassermann-Schultz. Looks like a hobby has turned into a democrat family business.
1
It may just come down to republican political hobbyists are better than democratic political hobbyists. By better, I don't necessarily mean that republican hobbyists took more AP courses in high school. Or maybe they did. I don't know. I do know there are more platforms for spleen venting on the right. And if spleen venters are learning animals, they eventually become good at spleen venting. Practice makes perfect. The left doesn't take many general issues seriously enough to get too many sort-of-like minded folks engaged. And those engaged seem to be competing with almost-like minded folks on an issue by issue basis. Instead of competing with folks that are not at all like minded. For full disclosure, I'm a democrat who likes to comment on blogs. Mostly environmental ones. Usually respectfully. Usually.
For instance, there is no Fox News or Breitbart on the left, despite Trump's complaints about the media left who won't toe the line. How many times have NYT op eds told us subscribers to compromise more? More to the point, Carlos Slim may want to get in on the Mexican border wall concrete bid package. Slim's Cemex is the biggest concrete supplier in North America. Trump will need both cheap concrete and better press to get that wall built. So we'll have solar panels and tolerance museums build along that boondoggle to get NYT excited enough to get readers excited.
For instance, there is no Fox News or Breitbart on the left, despite Trump's complaints about the media left who won't toe the line. How many times have NYT op eds told us subscribers to compromise more? More to the point, Carlos Slim may want to get in on the Mexican border wall concrete bid package. Slim's Cemex is the biggest concrete supplier in North America. Trump will need both cheap concrete and better press to get that wall built. So we'll have solar panels and tolerance museums build along that boondoggle to get NYT excited enough to get readers excited.
4
The article amounts to complaining about water for being wet.
It's effectively a law of nature that in every endeavor in which a
performance level can be defined, there is a skewed distribution: most
of the output comes from a small proportion of the participants.
So it is in politics; there are few activists and many passive
responders. Therefore it's unproductive to denigrate as "hobbyists" the
passive end of what is an inevitable distribution.
A more valid complaint would be that the public sphere has been
degraded by the attention paid to social media, which magnifies
the amplitude of passive responding.
It's effectively a law of nature that in every endeavor in which a
performance level can be defined, there is a skewed distribution: most
of the output comes from a small proportion of the participants.
So it is in politics; there are few activists and many passive
responders. Therefore it's unproductive to denigrate as "hobbyists" the
passive end of what is an inevitable distribution.
A more valid complaint would be that the public sphere has been
degraded by the attention paid to social media, which magnifies
the amplitude of passive responding.
11
Participatory democracy should be a solemn duty, not an echo chamber-filled distraction from the mundane. This also requires thinking about the consequences for each other and the least of these because we're in this great political experiment together. We're trampling upon the sacrifices of those who came before us if "democracy" becomes nothing more than an opportunity to make ourselves feel better or more superior than our fellow citizens. Doesn't the Declaration of Independence say something about equality?
www.thewaryouknow.com
www.thewaryouknow.com
5
The good professor doesn't like some of the "participants" in participatory democracy? Isn't that how democracy works? At some point, the professoriate will have to admit that maybe their candidate of choice did not appeal to the average voter (outside of California and NY). Condescending all around.
6
I am troubled by the high minded rhetoric of this essay which brands political participation in its most available forms as "hobbyist." What is the alternative to engaging in political participation through the use of available information and media? Do we just sit back and wait for a chance to vote? Do we depend on others to participate on our behalf? Are we guilty of expecting injustices to be addressed too quickly, instead of being satisfied with slower, measured progress? I do not think so.
In an instant, in a day, with the swipe of pen, our leaders have gathered around to make sweeping changes without benefit of fair notice, hearing, or legislation. Then, they've touted the speed and directness of their authoritarian triumphs, and their ability to foreclose any public debate. This is the realpolitik of 2017, which allows participation to many only on the fringes of governmental process.
There is no fair criticism to be directed at those of us who watch with growing alarm our nation's descent into a more fascist future and try to do something about it. In fact, the criticism should be reserved for those who do absolutely nothing, and counsel others to do the same, or those who simply watch and wait for the very conceivable dystopian future to arrive at last.
In an instant, in a day, with the swipe of pen, our leaders have gathered around to make sweeping changes without benefit of fair notice, hearing, or legislation. Then, they've touted the speed and directness of their authoritarian triumphs, and their ability to foreclose any public debate. This is the realpolitik of 2017, which allows participation to many only on the fringes of governmental process.
There is no fair criticism to be directed at those of us who watch with growing alarm our nation's descent into a more fascist future and try to do something about it. In fact, the criticism should be reserved for those who do absolutely nothing, and counsel others to do the same, or those who simply watch and wait for the very conceivable dystopian future to arrive at last.
20
Perhaps Prof. Hersh need to get his nose out of data sets and into an actual conversation with those of us engaged in politics these days. In Durham, NC, we have over 75 active members of We Stand Up ("Uppities") linked to Indivisible.
Our members daily contact their congressional and state representatives on issues that matter; we join marches and rallies that make the news and increase pressure; we visit political offices weekly, speak to aides, coordinate with like-minded groups; we publish opeds and letters; and we engage in door to door organizing against gerrymandering and in preparation for 2018 midterms. Many of us did and will take part in organized party work that includes regular meetings, recruiting candidates, registering voters and the like.
We are part of the reason Roy Cooper is the NC governor; we helped push back HB2; and we will be part of the reason the NCGA flips in 2018. We have helped make NC a model of how to build a base of political power. Yes, the work is hard and often discouraging -- but none of us need to be or should be dismissed for making real change. The armchair is an apt illustration for Prof' Hersh's "research" -- largely in his own head and uninterested in what is actually happening in a purple state like NC.
Our members daily contact their congressional and state representatives on issues that matter; we join marches and rallies that make the news and increase pressure; we visit political offices weekly, speak to aides, coordinate with like-minded groups; we publish opeds and letters; and we engage in door to door organizing against gerrymandering and in preparation for 2018 midterms. Many of us did and will take part in organized party work that includes regular meetings, recruiting candidates, registering voters and the like.
We are part of the reason Roy Cooper is the NC governor; we helped push back HB2; and we will be part of the reason the NCGA flips in 2018. We have helped make NC a model of how to build a base of political power. Yes, the work is hard and often discouraging -- but none of us need to be or should be dismissed for making real change. The armchair is an apt illustration for Prof' Hersh's "research" -- largely in his own head and uninterested in what is actually happening in a purple state like NC.
29
You lost me at "neighbor-to-neighbor persuasion."
11
If you'd like to participate, you can go to Trump's Twitter account, click on the aggressive ones from this week, and Report Abuse.
10
So people who write letters, attend town meetings, and stay informed are "hobbyists"? What's the alternative? Becoming a "professional"? A lobbyist or a "consultant," perhaps? Someone who is paid by big business to represent it?
What makes it all right for rich people to hire professional lobbyists, but when your average citizens decide they're going to get involved, their efforts to represent themselves and their neighbors are not legitimate?
Is it because we don't get paid huge sums of money to spend all day schmoozing with lawmakers inside government buildings, but instead are forced to stay outside, protesting in all kinds of weather?
What exactly delegitimizes citizen activities, but not the activities of lobbyists, political consultants, and other activists who are paid?
I'd say the latter are far more dangerous to democracy than the many people who sacrifice their time and money, people voluntarily working on behalf of themselves and their neighbors, who are not being represented by most of their so-called representatives.
What makes it all right for rich people to hire professional lobbyists, but when your average citizens decide they're going to get involved, their efforts to represent themselves and their neighbors are not legitimate?
Is it because we don't get paid huge sums of money to spend all day schmoozing with lawmakers inside government buildings, but instead are forced to stay outside, protesting in all kinds of weather?
What exactly delegitimizes citizen activities, but not the activities of lobbyists, political consultants, and other activists who are paid?
I'd say the latter are far more dangerous to democracy than the many people who sacrifice their time and money, people voluntarily working on behalf of themselves and their neighbors, who are not being represented by most of their so-called representatives.
27
Listen I am OK being an amateur or even a hobbyist if the alternative is to be like the professionals in DC.
8
What about venting one's thoughts, suggestions, and opinions in the comments section of this newspaper? Do they have an effect on decision makers? What about writing letters to House Reps, Senators, and the President? Do they have an effect? In Hersh's article, there is no mention of these activities on political decision making. What about polls conducted fairly and scientifically? Do they have an effect?
It seems to me that the current occupier of the Oval Office, the Speakers of the House and Senate, and the Supreme Court Justices are supremely ignorant, deaf, oblivious, or contemptuous of what is written in the editorial pages of the New York Times or the Washington Post. The President has decided to call all these newspapers as fake news.
Do we need a French Revolution to make our leaders responsive to the needs of the public?
It seems to me that the current occupier of the Oval Office, the Speakers of the House and Senate, and the Supreme Court Justices are supremely ignorant, deaf, oblivious, or contemptuous of what is written in the editorial pages of the New York Times or the Washington Post. The President has decided to call all these newspapers as fake news.
Do we need a French Revolution to make our leaders responsive to the needs of the public?
11
Do we all feel properly should-on now? Thank you Professor Hersh.
I would point out that logic highly suggests that if hobbiest are involved now, we got to this point by professionals running the show prior. If the professionals were doing such a good job, hoi polloi would have remained placated.
Personally I think we are in the midst of a real moral, ethical, environmental, and economic revolution in this country.
And social media, and tools like this comment platform, do make it easy for Americans to express their ideas. For better or worse.
Currently I am not happy with our nation, with members of my family, members of my community, and especially with our governance.
And given the grotesque grab for power by our Congress and Presidency, supported by our Supreme Court, I don't see this necessarily ending collaboratively before serious social strife and possibly widespread violence.
I'm certainly not going to bend my centrist to liberal values in any manner to meet the current Republican powers that be; be that my family, my friends, or our elected and appointed representatives.
What we are witnessing is the fracturing of a nation along moral, ethical, and ideological lines regardless of the level of professionalism, or no, of those involved, and nothing less.
The problem is not Democracy, it is the takers among us who use our Democracy to enrich themselves, attain power over others, and to inflate their pathetic egos.
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
I would point out that logic highly suggests that if hobbiest are involved now, we got to this point by professionals running the show prior. If the professionals were doing such a good job, hoi polloi would have remained placated.
Personally I think we are in the midst of a real moral, ethical, environmental, and economic revolution in this country.
And social media, and tools like this comment platform, do make it easy for Americans to express their ideas. For better or worse.
Currently I am not happy with our nation, with members of my family, members of my community, and especially with our governance.
And given the grotesque grab for power by our Congress and Presidency, supported by our Supreme Court, I don't see this necessarily ending collaboratively before serious social strife and possibly widespread violence.
I'm certainly not going to bend my centrist to liberal values in any manner to meet the current Republican powers that be; be that my family, my friends, or our elected and appointed representatives.
What we are witnessing is the fracturing of a nation along moral, ethical, and ideological lines regardless of the level of professionalism, or no, of those involved, and nothing less.
The problem is not Democracy, it is the takers among us who use our Democracy to enrich themselves, attain power over others, and to inflate their pathetic egos.
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
21
Amen Mr. Bain. Well done!
3
I wrote once before in Thomas Friedman's column that the West is engaged in blind, ideological worship of the god of democracy. Blind because of the refusal to recognize the difference between popularity and competence, resulting in a few notable incompetent US presidents. Ideological because of the obsession with processes rather than outcomes. A good example to illustrate this is the hysterical western press coverage of the power grab in Egypt and Turkey, where nothing is reported over whether the presidents did anything good for their people. In other words, the west considers a good, competent leader who governs well as illegitimate if he/she did not reach his/her position through a "democratic" mean satisfactory to the west.
To paraphrase an Asian thinker, the west have open societies but closed minds whereas China has a closed society but an open mind. An open mind to see and adopt what works, after having learned a painful lesson from a blind ideological mindset.
Every time I winced when I hear some pundit blindly and dogmatically waxed lyrically about democracy as the panacea for all the world's problems.
To paraphrase an Asian thinker, the west have open societies but closed minds whereas China has a closed society but an open mind. An open mind to see and adopt what works, after having learned a painful lesson from a blind ideological mindset.
Every time I winced when I hear some pundit blindly and dogmatically waxed lyrically about democracy as the panacea for all the world's problems.
4
Well what choice do we have? It is impossible to ignore and say nothing when the President of the United States behaves like a circus clown and sometimes a maniac. It is our duty to support the free press to the best of our ability and to stand up against his newest move to suppress voter privacy. His attacks on the press are crude even bestial. His attempts to intimate and cower voters are sleazy. Both such moves on Trump's part are blatantly Fascist -and borrowed from WWII dictators. We must stand by the free press and guard our personal freedom in the face of this evil. We must guard our religious freedom but need not be Christian. We must protect immigrants. We must come down hard against the ugly new healthcare bill. We must defend clean air for all of us must breathe it.
9
Most voters would not understand this article or most of the 730 comments so far. Pretentious intellectualism of the New York and east coast elite and the Ruling Class is our problem. I'm good with what we have and trust the process of political natural selection will do what it does. And one day Donald Trump will be a blip on the screen like (insert any one of the worse Presidents). I completely get what is being discussed here and I recoil at the thoughts. Leave it to the intellectually elite think they know what is best for me, and then send me and mine to the trenches to die for it.
3
Mr. Hersh makes a compelling argument; however, I believe it's only one piece of an immensely complex puzzle: the puzzle being America's society, its pieces incalculable numbers of needs, wants, expectations, ideas, beliefs, and sociopolitical/socioeconomic "factions." In a phrase, we are 238 million adults who possess nearly as many notions of how our republic should operate and serve. (This is a good thing.)
Thus, our current passivity -- our head-spinning effort to sort out confusion and anger about the state of things -- isn't all bad. Indeed, kudos to the legions of Americans who are venting at the neighborhood barbecue and across the social networks. This collective voice is its own kind of action -- a productive beginning.
The American Revolution took fire partly from the serviceable rantings of a patriot named Thomas Paine. If you'll recall, his "passivity" manifested in a little book called "Common Sense" -- read by millions, and ultimately acted upon by just as many, and more.
Thus, our current passivity -- our head-spinning effort to sort out confusion and anger about the state of things -- isn't all bad. Indeed, kudos to the legions of Americans who are venting at the neighborhood barbecue and across the social networks. This collective voice is its own kind of action -- a productive beginning.
The American Revolution took fire partly from the serviceable rantings of a patriot named Thomas Paine. If you'll recall, his "passivity" manifested in a little book called "Common Sense" -- read by millions, and ultimately acted upon by just as many, and more.
6
Effective political engagement consists of staying informed about politics and voting in all elections, governors, state legislators, federal midterm, congressional and presidential elections. Democrats should spend their funds on voter engagement and turnout. Instead of spending money on costly advertisements, use social media which are much cheaper and more effective at turning out the vote especially among younger voters who lean Democratic.
7
Every American who cares about the future of the USA
"should know that an unending string of activities intended for instant gratification does not amount to much in political power. What they should ask is whether their emotions and energy are contributing to a behind-the-scenes effort to build local support across the country or whether they are merely a hollow, self-gratifying manifestation of the new political hobbyism."
Yes I agree.
And the reintroduction of civic lessons and critical thinking would be help and a education system that teaches people to use their minds and not just pass tests.
"should know that an unending string of activities intended for instant gratification does not amount to much in political power. What they should ask is whether their emotions and energy are contributing to a behind-the-scenes effort to build local support across the country or whether they are merely a hollow, self-gratifying manifestation of the new political hobbyism."
Yes I agree.
And the reintroduction of civic lessons and critical thinking would be help and a education system that teaches people to use their minds and not just pass tests.
1
An excellent piece that needs a little more nuance. Hobbyists often collect around authentic devotees, and serious issues nonetheless collect hobbyists. Many well-off liberals do care deeply about the issues, though more are hobbyists, such as those who voted for Jill Stein. Also, Black Lives Matter doesn’t merit a blanket pass. Many BLM supporters didn't bother to vote. Others just want to act out 'justifiable' outrage (a hobbyist 'hallmark') but shirk, or scoff at, the hard work of building bridges to other constituencies so as actually to get better candidates elected.
Restrictions on free speech and 'safe spaces' on campus indicate hobbies. Of course hobbyists want a safe space to practice a hobby - no theater or math club should be interrupted by adversaries. That is the essence of a hobby; concerned citizens, by contrast, want to connect, debate and convince others.
Now that Mr. Hersh mentions it, we have 'hobbyists' everywhere: in literature, e.g., authors eschew the hard craft of writing in favor of visceral appeal to violence and emotion. The left boasts representatives of marginalized groups who write down actual or fictionalized accounts of historic trauma and ask how dare we say it isn't great art? (Of course it isn't; human history is embarrassingly littered with atrocities by all societies and simply reciting them is not art.) On the right, we have ‘action novels’, video games and survivalists, with their superhuman male heroics.
O tempora, o mores!
Restrictions on free speech and 'safe spaces' on campus indicate hobbies. Of course hobbyists want a safe space to practice a hobby - no theater or math club should be interrupted by adversaries. That is the essence of a hobby; concerned citizens, by contrast, want to connect, debate and convince others.
Now that Mr. Hersh mentions it, we have 'hobbyists' everywhere: in literature, e.g., authors eschew the hard craft of writing in favor of visceral appeal to violence and emotion. The left boasts representatives of marginalized groups who write down actual or fictionalized accounts of historic trauma and ask how dare we say it isn't great art? (Of course it isn't; human history is embarrassingly littered with atrocities by all societies and simply reciting them is not art.) On the right, we have ‘action novels’, video games and survivalists, with their superhuman male heroics.
O tempora, o mores!
3
Is it too much to ask native born US citizens to pass the same civics test required of prospective citizens in order to vote?
11
First let's ask of any potential candidate, or President, Senator, Representative, in office to be able to pass that test before they can take the oath of office. If that had been the case, sadly for Trump he still wouldn't be able to be inaugurated
10
Points well taken, but I think Dems are becoming more engaged in the kind of activity that yields change. That FB and other shared media is abuzz doesn't mean that other more meaningful activity is not. It certainly remains to be seen if we will continue to work towards getting out the vote, but I, for one, am hopeful it will.
13
See the article in the link for a good analysis of the problem:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/1/15515820/donald-trump-d...
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/1/15515820/donald-trump-d...
3
Nice article, but none of it will matter soon, when the shift to banana republic/kakis-/pluto-/theocracy takes an irreversible hold.
4
I find myself unfairly described in this article. Yes, since the election of Trump I spend much more time reading news articles online and arguing with friends of friends on facebook, and I'm aware that I'm just spinning my wheels with those activities. But I am also donating to more political and charitable organizations and making phone calls and writing letters to my Senators that I have ever done in the past. I am also spending time daily to talk to my daughter about the issues and continuously reminding her that the President's racist, misogynist, ignorant behavior is not normal and not okay. In the face of evidence to the contrary, I have told her and tried to show her that most Americans share a lot of important values like helping the poor, protecting the vulnerable, comforting the sick, compassion, honesty, selflessness and service to your fellow man. Other than marching, what more can I do?
22
All of these things are important. Do the best you can!
Also if next week Trump and his administration o to jail, and the Democrats rise ascendant to take his place, don't think your work is over.
When the People are active things get better for the People. When the People get comfortable and lazy, the mega rich take over, and things get worse for the People.
Governance is a constant tug of war. You can take vacations from it occasionally, but we all need to work on issues that are important to us every week. You wouldn't hire someone to manage your store, then leave them alone for four years. You have to manage the manager, and you have to manage the politicians that are supposed to be representing you.
Republicans shouldn't be cheering on someone like George Bush when he starts a war based on lies, and Democrats shouldn't be cheering on an Obama when he expands surveillance, and makes it legal to detain US citizens without seeing a judge (see the Magna Carta).
Just because they are on your team, doesn't mean they are doing the right thing. You have more responsibility to manage those you vote for than those you vote against.
Also, don't forget to enjoy saving the world. Food, music, dance, art, comedy, story telling (distinguish between truth and fiction please), and more make the hard work uplifting and fun. They are necessary ingredients.
And don't forget:
The ends are the means. Doing the wrong thing will never make the right thing happen.
Also if next week Trump and his administration o to jail, and the Democrats rise ascendant to take his place, don't think your work is over.
When the People are active things get better for the People. When the People get comfortable and lazy, the mega rich take over, and things get worse for the People.
Governance is a constant tug of war. You can take vacations from it occasionally, but we all need to work on issues that are important to us every week. You wouldn't hire someone to manage your store, then leave them alone for four years. You have to manage the manager, and you have to manage the politicians that are supposed to be representing you.
Republicans shouldn't be cheering on someone like George Bush when he starts a war based on lies, and Democrats shouldn't be cheering on an Obama when he expands surveillance, and makes it legal to detain US citizens without seeing a judge (see the Magna Carta).
Just because they are on your team, doesn't mean they are doing the right thing. You have more responsibility to manage those you vote for than those you vote against.
Also, don't forget to enjoy saving the world. Food, music, dance, art, comedy, story telling (distinguish between truth and fiction please), and more make the hard work uplifting and fun. They are necessary ingredients.
And don't forget:
The ends are the means. Doing the wrong thing will never make the right thing happen.
4
Seldom have I read a more perfect example of insulting and patronizing academic elitism.
13
Yeah, but he's right.
2
Thank you. Totally agree. Beyond a wink at neutrality, this is really nothing more than a suggestion of how Democrats, liberals, progressives (I am all of those) can better regain control of the narrative and the levers of power. So let's allow the writer that his direction would be flawlessly effective in achieving a resurgence of the Democrats in congress, the White House, and in state houses. Who exactly would that be? What Democratic Party would that be? The party that is representative of the stunningly rich donors from the coasts. Those people don't have a care in the world for the middle and working classes, and the poor, in the rest of this country. They literally do not care. And they are calling the shots in the Democratic Party. THAT is why we have a Donald Trump in the White House and why the Republican Party controlling so many levers of power in our federal and state governments.
So, what's the problem again? Oh yeah, participatory democracy. Well, how's this. You better figure out how to craft a political party that represents and answers to the problems of the big mushy parts of this country that are sandwiched by the coastal elite corridors. Right now, there is exactly zero party that does that.
So, what's the problem again? Oh yeah, participatory democracy. Well, how's this. You better figure out how to craft a political party that represents and answers to the problems of the big mushy parts of this country that are sandwiched by the coastal elite corridors. Right now, there is exactly zero party that does that.
1
Well said!
1
Churchill famously said '"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"
Democracy is a popularity contest by amateurs for amateurs. Today we are seeing in the United States why it can fail, and fail badly. Many voters voted for an unqualified man who had no experience nor skills to be a leader, in a word an unqualified amateur. The U.S. system has failed because the checks and balances written into the constitution have not protected from an unqualified leader being elected by those with no knowledge nor who even care for good government, but instead wish to follow their own selfish agenda. No amount of hobby political awareness will change that.
Democracy is a popularity contest by amateurs for amateurs. Today we are seeing in the United States why it can fail, and fail badly. Many voters voted for an unqualified man who had no experience nor skills to be a leader, in a word an unqualified amateur. The U.S. system has failed because the checks and balances written into the constitution have not protected from an unqualified leader being elected by those with no knowledge nor who even care for good government, but instead wish to follow their own selfish agenda. No amount of hobby political awareness will change that.
4
This article hits the ball out of the park. Great Job!!
4
Thank you for an enlightened discussion. Democracy & the theater were born on the same day in Greece. An audience member answered the actor/playwright/director onstage. Theater was reborn in the Church after the Dark Ages when an congregation member answered the Quem Queritus trope. Eugene O Neill ignited progressive American theater in a fishing shack one wharf near where pilgrims began America. (Actually native Americans were here--not settlers but natives). We in America must create new theater in found spaces & allow the unheard voices to be heard & the ignored faces tube seen. In San Francisco Playwright Dr. Larry Myers of St John's University in Manhattan has ignited his Playwrights Sanctuary (endorsed by the late legendary Edward Albee). Myers is mentoring new plays by younger & new dramatists - concerning tent city dwellers, homeless gay teens, dislocated trans folks. & now the secretly abused women of Silicon Valley. Instead of kvetching with information let us dramatize the truth of wisdom via live theater arts not name recognition, distracting show business. Listen to the people who voted via fake news, alternative news, lies & mendacity.
1
What a waste of space! An entire article about all the things Americans are supposedly doing wrong, and less than an entire sentence spent telling us what we SHOULD be doing instead. "...local organizing, supporting party organizations, neighbor-to-neighbor persuasion, even voting in midterm elections" is this author's advice. But "organizing" isn't very productive unless you fall in line with one of our two parties (and neither party has been very appealing, lately!), "neighbor-to-neighbor persuasion" sounds a lot like the sort of thing this guy ridicules, and the author never established that not voting in mid-term elections is something that politically engaged people are guilty of.
5
I think this article is simply insulting to many of us. The increased participation, the avid devouring of news, the deluge of calls and texts and emails to representatives - they are because there are life-and-death issues at stake here that the current executive and legislature are treating with breathtaking irresponsibility. I don't subscribe to healthcare bill updates or call my Congresspeople in tears because it's entertaining or I get some kind of hobbyist's glee out of it. I call because I'm terrified that my family will have the possibility of health care ripped away from us. I follow the news because I need to know as a citizen what new horrific plan has been dreamed up to attack my rights, or those of immigrants, or our children who deserve to inherit a liveable planet. Normal armchair political junkie-ism is to following this government's news the way watching a soap opera is to watching your local news updating on hurricane warnings: the current administration has a slate of policies that would actually devastate millions of people, including you, and they are coming up with new ones all the time.
Don't insult newly active citizens' fears, Professor Hersh, by saying we're slacktivists or we're in it for some kind of masochistic entertainment. This is a proportional reaction to the non-normal times we live in, and we are doing exactly what we should do - following the developments, pointing out that this is abnormal, and standing up and saying "NO."
Don't insult newly active citizens' fears, Professor Hersh, by saying we're slacktivists or we're in it for some kind of masochistic entertainment. This is a proportional reaction to the non-normal times we live in, and we are doing exactly what we should do - following the developments, pointing out that this is abnormal, and standing up and saying "NO."
14
This article is long on intro and short on solutions. Solutions lie in relevant messaging, a platform of 20 words or so, leaders who are tough and caring and organizing that candidates alone can do. I wish for example that Deval Patrick has been a candidate but this spilled milk business is our problem. Eyes on a future and candidates who want to own it.
1
I found this article to be complete and utter nonsense.
The problem with our "democracy" (where neither bush nor trump won the vote), is that people are generally under-educated, overworked, ill-informed, and preyed upon by "representatives" who think the government should be run like a business, instead of something which strives to ensure equality of education, and equality of opportunity.
Trump LOST. Now, is that the fault of "armchair" voters? Or, is it the fault of the pervasive corruption of the system we think of as a "democracy", but, in reality, it has become simply a tool for the wealthy to manipulate?
The other problem is that a lot of people have bought into the GOP sales pitch that "less taxes will solve everything".
But why even comment right? I mean that's your point isn't it?
What high-brow nonsense.
The problem with our "democracy" (where neither bush nor trump won the vote), is that people are generally under-educated, overworked, ill-informed, and preyed upon by "representatives" who think the government should be run like a business, instead of something which strives to ensure equality of education, and equality of opportunity.
Trump LOST. Now, is that the fault of "armchair" voters? Or, is it the fault of the pervasive corruption of the system we think of as a "democracy", but, in reality, it has become simply a tool for the wealthy to manipulate?
The other problem is that a lot of people have bought into the GOP sales pitch that "less taxes will solve everything".
But why even comment right? I mean that's your point isn't it?
What high-brow nonsense.
9
The problem with our democracy is too many uneducated participants who have no clue how the government works or what its purpose is.
4
Surely the author can't have overlooked the fact that no one in Washington really cares what we think out here in voting land. Witness no gun control measures when 80% of the population believes there should be. How about the Healthcare tragedy in this country. A vast majority of the population is furious at Congress. Do they care? Not much. No penalties for them. Hem, the popular vote meant zero in the last election. 3 MILLION more votes for the loser. Yes, sir that encourages me to vote. If the electoral college was working the way the FF meant it to work, we would have our first woman president.
While you are castigating people for not taking action, consider how little impact their action has to sway anyone in Washington about anything.
That's the way it works when Corporations are people and the rest of us are collateral damage.
While you are castigating people for not taking action, consider how little impact their action has to sway anyone in Washington about anything.
That's the way it works when Corporations are people and the rest of us are collateral damage.
11
The disengaged superficial voters who didn't bother to pay attention to REAL DONALD TRUMP got what they voted for: a president who isn't concerned with doing his job to improve the country. Trump's a performer who's now busily and openly 'pretending' to be POTUS. He cares only about publicity, getting attention, his poll numbers.
Its incredible we've come to this but here it is: a fake presidency starring a reality tv star who knows nothing about how to do the job and doesn't care to learn. Who does this leave as president?
Steve Bannon? Jared? Mike Pence? Mitch McConnell? We don't know This is OUR country and we don't even know who's making the decisions. God forbid it's Trump.
Its incredible we've come to this but here it is: a fake presidency starring a reality tv star who knows nothing about how to do the job and doesn't care to learn. Who does this leave as president?
Steve Bannon? Jared? Mike Pence? Mitch McConnell? We don't know This is OUR country and we don't even know who's making the decisions. God forbid it's Trump.
2
So, professor, what's the solution?
3
I agree with many of the points made in this thoughtful article. Eitan Hersh alludes to how things may be more effective but does not provide much in the way of constructive advise. Perhaps a Part II will provide the tools for getting out of "hobbyism" effectively.
1
Everyone should take a closer look at the 17th Amendment of the Constitution. From 1789 to the early 20th century Senators were appointed by their respective state legislatures. That changed in 1913 when the 17th Amendment was ratified--the Constitution had been amended to allow the people to directly elect their Senators instead of having state legislators pick and choose who will represent the people in Washington DC. In light of what's been going on lately does anyone want to consider repealing this amendment? Washington DC has turned into a disaster since ordinary people were given the right to elect Senators themselves. What a silly hobby elections have become.
1
But just take a look at the state legislatures. They are so gerrymandered (it's not just Congressional districts) that they are controlled by the GOP in large majority, despite the fact that most voters aren't Republican.
4
"Political hobbyism" led to the Tea Party which was a significant political force. Pretty much everyone who "likes" political Facebook posts and retweets things they agree with will definitely vote when the time comes and probably bring some people with them. Since that's the only political action that actually counts, it's good for democracy.
5
The real problem with democracy is that today's world is far too complicated for any single person to knowingly determine an optimal decision for most, issues. The demands of one's normal work-day, possible additional education efforts, and home/family are more than enough to fill most people's day.
Learning and knowing enough to make informed political decisions in just one or two areas is more than enough to fill the day - again. And many simply don't have the background in economics, statistics, etc. Nonetheless, many Americans waste countless hours making a vain attempt to do so.
In the process, they upset themselves, irritate many others, and most assuredly waste their time. Reality is that very big donors have made American politics a farce for most of us.
It's time to look at somehow copying China's model - rule by expert information and opinion - directed at what's best for the nation, not one party or group vs. another. And we can stop wasting our time fooling ourselves that we either know what we're talking about or can do anything about anything.
Learning and knowing enough to make informed political decisions in just one or two areas is more than enough to fill the day - again. And many simply don't have the background in economics, statistics, etc. Nonetheless, many Americans waste countless hours making a vain attempt to do so.
In the process, they upset themselves, irritate many others, and most assuredly waste their time. Reality is that very big donors have made American politics a farce for most of us.
It's time to look at somehow copying China's model - rule by expert information and opinion - directed at what's best for the nation, not one party or group vs. another. And we can stop wasting our time fooling ourselves that we either know what we're talking about or can do anything about anything.
5
good grief... emulating China because our problems are complicated ?... ever worked in an organization (e.g., almost every corporation in the world) where there are numerous specialists reporting to a generalist leader ?
2
Before concluding that our democracy is working, look at the mess our healthcare and public schools are in. Both are the world's most expensive (or very close to it - Luxembourg spend a bit more on public schools than the U.S.), and both fail to produce commensurate outcomes. (Especially our public schools.)
Think also about why we've been in nearly a constant war with some nation or other since Vietnam - and embroiled ourselves in a never-ending mess in the Middle East. Or why we're now gutting environmental regulations, have given away millions of jobs, are wedded to almost omnipresent guns. Trillions wasted in trying to run the world. Certainly outcomes NOT to be proud of.
Regardless, your 'point' is pointless. Show me a successful large organization that's run democratically.
Think also about why we've been in nearly a constant war with some nation or other since Vietnam - and embroiled ourselves in a never-ending mess in the Middle East. Or why we're now gutting environmental regulations, have given away millions of jobs, are wedded to almost omnipresent guns. Trillions wasted in trying to run the world. Certainly outcomes NOT to be proud of.
Regardless, your 'point' is pointless. Show me a successful large organization that's run democratically.
1
Peer-reviewed studies need to be done in order to determine whether or not data supports the notion that on-line political chattering drains energy away from boots-on-the-ground political participation, activism and voting, or if the converse is true: that the added communication whips up more interest than might otherwise have been the case and gets people to volunteer and to the polls. Until then, this argument will continue: certainly this author produces no data to support his position.
3
The problem is the DNC is trying to embrace EVERYONE and EVERYTHING- in order to establish strength in numbers. However cast too wide a net and now the party has too many platforms without a central unifying message. Many self-professed "liberal democrats" don't support BLM, amnesty for undocumented immigrant workers- nor to they care for LGBTQ pride parades. Heaven forbid they make this known- so what did they do? They quietly voted for Trump because they thought he was going to fix the economy. And they will most likely give him another chance in 2020 because the DNC has swung too far left. The DNC is organizing protest rallies, sit-ins, drum circles and poetry slams- but they aren't fixing or addressing anything. They deserve to lose.
4
The problem with our "democracy" is that it is not a democracy. Our courts have ruled that money can talk, and once you cross that line, capitalism crushes even the pretense of fairness or "one man one vote."
14
I chair a voter registration - get out the vote thing in my area and have been doing it for years. Although I'm sure there are people who do nothing but post things on Facebook for their like-minded friends, I disagree with your analysis. It sn't hobbyism, but polarization – and a refusal to understand or even listen to what motivates one's political opponents – that is destroying the possibility of rational political discourse and the construction of solutions to the problems that face the nation.
16
Good argument. Now get quantitative about it. Which is the truly bigger effect? But that takes research, and can't be done with apps. Darn.
Too much posting, online discourse and the like and not enough face to face communication where people get a feel for each other and learn to understand each other's real reason's for the votes they cast. Well said, polarization such that the other is wrong before the game starts and listening is a waste of time.
NYT - "Our politics are broken because of ordinary people who are doing it the wrong way."
Of course anyone who votes against the thinking of the NYT, the Democratic Party and the liberal progressive agenda, yes I'm being redundant, is always wrong! There is only one correct way and that's your way.
Of course anyone who votes against the thinking of the NYT, the Democratic Party and the liberal progressive agenda, yes I'm being redundant, is always wrong! There is only one correct way and that's your way.
11
You completely missed the point of this piece. Entirely.
3
Reread the article, Tired -- and pay attention this time.
1
The author makes some interesting and thought provoking points, but I think he is mistaken on a few points. My feeling is that the 'hobbyists' he demeans are fully engaged & likely to be active political participants, who turn out for elections & send messages to their representatives, etc. There are problems with the 'low information' citizen, who might vote for a candidate simply because they're familiar with the candidate's name from heavy advertising, etc. or, who might not vote at all. We also have done a terrible job in teaching our students our political history. Voters might not realize when some hard won right is threatened. People also feel disempowered & discouraged by the trend to allow huge flows of unexamined cash to flow to politicians. Our current politics have made the voter an afterthought. I would have agreed with the author more if he had pointed out that Democrats need to do a much better job of organizing at the grassroots level, starting with college groups &I running for local offices, for example. This last election has shown that the Dems don't have a good farm team.
8
"Not all activism is political hobbyism. A Black Lives Matter protest meant to call attention to police misconduct and demand change on an issue with life-or-death consequences is not hobbyism."
Yet another completely uncritical discussion of BLM. On the contrary, many of those who participate in the BLM movement are only doing it because they think it is fun -- that is, they only do it because they are hobbyists. The movement's slew of judicial failures evinces the movement's flaws.
The problem is much simpler that the author believes. True failure of democracy occurs when a political party on the left backs a movement/idea that practically donates moderates to the right. The reason we lost the election isn't hobbyism. It's that too few people voted for the Democrats, and there are four reasons why: BLM, complaining about Islamophobia, the transgender bathroom issue (which I support but nonetheless was counterproductive at this point in time), and political correctness. This is why we lost.
Yet another completely uncritical discussion of BLM. On the contrary, many of those who participate in the BLM movement are only doing it because they think it is fun -- that is, they only do it because they are hobbyists. The movement's slew of judicial failures evinces the movement's flaws.
The problem is much simpler that the author believes. True failure of democracy occurs when a political party on the left backs a movement/idea that practically donates moderates to the right. The reason we lost the election isn't hobbyism. It's that too few people voted for the Democrats, and there are four reasons why: BLM, complaining about Islamophobia, the transgender bathroom issue (which I support but nonetheless was counterproductive at this point in time), and political correctness. This is why we lost.
15
With all due respect, professor, you - in Academia - have a great deal of free time. You could conceivably pursue many hobbies of your choice in that free time.
Most Americans today, however, are working more hours, including having to stay in touch with work via phone or being on-call even in their "free" time, than even many other countries: Shorter vacations and longer hours. You can look that up. You'll be amazed.
So - here's my point - it seems to me very patronizing on your part to call any hard-working individual a "hobbiest" for participating in political discussions, including informing themselves, as well as spending sleepless nights concerned about our Republic- which is in peril. And taking action - of whatever type.
Give your fellow American a little more respect. At the very least. I'm retired, so perhaps you could call me a "hobbiest" - I frankly don't care if you do. But most people work very hard. And that hard work includes what to you, in a patronizing way, term only a "hobby."
God Bless them! Say I!
Most Americans today, however, are working more hours, including having to stay in touch with work via phone or being on-call even in their "free" time, than even many other countries: Shorter vacations and longer hours. You can look that up. You'll be amazed.
So - here's my point - it seems to me very patronizing on your part to call any hard-working individual a "hobbiest" for participating in political discussions, including informing themselves, as well as spending sleepless nights concerned about our Republic- which is in peril. And taking action - of whatever type.
Give your fellow American a little more respect. At the very least. I'm retired, so perhaps you could call me a "hobbiest" - I frankly don't care if you do. But most people work very hard. And that hard work includes what to you, in a patronizing way, term only a "hobby."
God Bless them! Say I!
16
The hobbyists who don't vote are the worst.
6
No, no, no. The problem is that we don't have a participatory democracy. You can't, when you have one House member for every 720,000 constituents. Our Constitution gives us the right to have one for every 30,000 constituents, but most folks, including apparently this pretentious writer with his head way too up in the clouds, have no clue about that. To have a participatory democracy of the kind our fearless Founders had in mind, we must first undo all the damage done 100-plus years ago by Nativists when they ran roughshod over our republic with Public Law 62-5 https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/republic-unfrozen
5
Christopher makes a good point. The imbalances in the Senate and the electoral college make for very unbalanced representation. It was a good idea 200 years ago. Maybe not so much now. I do think a 10,000 member House of Representative would be a bit much to organize. But our representation has been watered down and not evenly.
5
It seems that this essay is one long string of unsupported and undefended opinions from one faintly qualified individual who views the majority of democratic political activism as dilettantish and insincere. The author provides no facts, or even anecdotes to support this perspective. Moreover, she provides no vision of what "genuine activism" would look like in distinction to "hobbyism."
It seems that "hobbyism" might perhaps be a more accurate descriptor for the author's approach to the writing of an opinion: -- bundle up a few random thoughts, leaven with a handful of simplistic generalizations, and wrap it in a fabric of snarky cynicism.
Who is it that vets contributors to the opinion page of the New York Times?
It seems that "hobbyism" might perhaps be a more accurate descriptor for the author's approach to the writing of an opinion: -- bundle up a few random thoughts, leaven with a handful of simplistic generalizations, and wrap it in a fabric of snarky cynicism.
Who is it that vets contributors to the opinion page of the New York Times?
9
Who does? The establishment does, especially when they're often considered a tool of the establishment. I'm talking to you, NY Times.
1
First off, Dave, Eitan is a man's name, not a woman's. Secondly, this is a short opinion piece -- not a full length academic treatise complete with footnotes. Therefore, there is no room for the thoroughgoing documentation that you seem to require. In any case, the author certainly seems to have touched a sore spot. Are you, by any chance, one of the hobbyists whom he describes?
History shows that democracy eventually fails and falls. Athens, the cradle. Four French republicss before this one. Remember that before the Bolsheviks their was the Kerensky democracy? Remember before the Nazis there was the Weimer Republic? And didn't the Russians flirt with democracy after Gorbachev and before Putin? Ordinary Americans since the Johnson Administration have been letting democracy slip through the fingers of the Statue of Liberty, as they have supported candidates and policies that are bigoted, skewed in favor of mega-rich individuals, and that support turning this country into a stratified class structure of haves and have-nots. Both democracy and autocracy need support. Lack of active support to prop up one leads to the other.
7
I think there are thousands of us, millions of us, who'd be delighted to do the "boring, demanding or slow" work that Hersh insists "we" don't want to do. Truth: Much of the work that could we could do, that is basic, foundational and incremental is done is now done by "professionals" and billionaires who have taken it on and paid for it for their own fame and their own fortune. Get me involved and show me how a campaign should be run. Help me set up a phone bank and give me the training to call and manage it. No, I can't write an app, but you can use my talents in 15 other ways that will help get that candidate elected and the bond issue passed. Hugging power to the vest leaves many of with nowhere to be except in the chair pounding on our keyboards. Put us to work and give us those small tasks while also training us to take on bigger jobs.
3
Perhaps political hobbyism is all that is left when you feel you have no voice...when all the elections have been rigged by gerrymandering...when the presidency is owned by the fault of the electoral college....when the justice dept. is stacked with political appointees (for life in many cases)...when deep pockets and dark money control everything...when votes are silenced in large measure by political shenanigans. Is it no wonder we are where we are?
10
How dare you marginalize the angst that concerned citizens have by reducing it to hobbyism. We are trying to make sense of our fellow Americans so we can find a way out of this mess.
12
Trump is making a mockery of our nation. He is acting like we are in a world wrestling foundation TV show. It is surreal. And it is also his way of saying about the Russia probe, move on, nothing to see here. See the latest tweets I am making, aren't they outrageous? I am a WINNER.
But the American public are the losers. Democrats truly need to get their act together or disband the party and let something else come to the fore.
But the American public are the losers. Democrats truly need to get their act together or disband the party and let something else come to the fore.
6
In the middle of this holiday, celebrating our independence and the unique American way, perhaps liberals (aka globalists and lovers of the nanny state) should quiet down for a few days.
1
It may be too late. The 1% have so much money and power, it's gonna be tough to get out from their spell. All we have left is courage and guns.
6
THIS PERFECTLY DESCRIBES DONALD TRUMP... TODAY..
MARK TWAIN, August 22,1907
quoting Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Walker McCall, (referring to President Teddy Roosevelt).
“But if your government is imaged in one man there will be grave danger. It will reflect all the extreme qualities of the man.
You are liable some day to have a President supremely lacking in the qualities of a statesman, and one who is egotistic, impulsive, of immature judgment, a mere glutton of the limelight, ready to barter away prosperity and even his country’s freedom for momentary popular applause.
If he is an autocrat, such as he is, such for the time, will your country be. Instead of a mighty nation, great in her physical strength and greater in her moral qualities, you may have a strutting, confiscating, shrieking, meddling America.
God save us from such a day!”
MARK TWAIN, August 22,1907
quoting Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Walker McCall, (referring to President Teddy Roosevelt).
“But if your government is imaged in one man there will be grave danger. It will reflect all the extreme qualities of the man.
You are liable some day to have a President supremely lacking in the qualities of a statesman, and one who is egotistic, impulsive, of immature judgment, a mere glutton of the limelight, ready to barter away prosperity and even his country’s freedom for momentary popular applause.
If he is an autocrat, such as he is, such for the time, will your country be. Instead of a mighty nation, great in her physical strength and greater in her moral qualities, you may have a strutting, confiscating, shrieking, meddling America.
God save us from such a day!”
7
There's an old saying this professor needs to learn: You catch more flies with honey - than with vinegar.
2
Even our founders were wary of democracy, hence they gave us the Senate and electoral college as a supposed check on the masses. Given the outcome of the 2016 election it would appear their concern was justified but their solution had exactly opposite effect intended. Instead of protecting us from the excesses of the mob they turned us over to the mob.
6
Their process worked exactly as intended.
There many critiques here of the article that are only partially apt. Yes, many people don't have time to be active. Yes, there are huge political forces in play and a lot of nefarious people to blame. Yes, academics do tend to live in ivory towers. However, if the shoe fits, wear it. There are many people who complain about America's politics who in fact do have enough time to do more than just vote or march once per election cycle or follow the daily awful news in the media. If that description fits you, take this article's message to heart seriously. The country will owe thanks to everyone who switches from passive complaining to active political participation.
42
Where where are actual ethics and values in this analysis? The corporate managed parties produced two candidates of dubious worth, both seeking profit, neither believing the law applies to them. Both liars, the bigger liar won.
So working properly, how do citizens address their corrupt broken idea free parties?
So working properly, how do citizens address their corrupt broken idea free parties?
4
The Trump administration is built on hobbyists who have no expertise in their governmental jobs. Some examples: POTUS, Justin, Ivanka, Rick Perry, Scott Pruitt, Betsy DeVos, Steve Bannon......and on and on.
Maybe this disastrous reality will cause enough soul searching to transform the American populace from political hobbyists into savvy political participants?
Or if not, maybe the reality of hobbyist leaders and citizenry will result in a critical mass of destruction which will awaken Americans to the fact that democracy, perhaps more than any other form of government, does not run on autopilot. Its power derives from constant and active vigilance such as voting, protesting, bringing legal actions and sometimes fighting.
Something to consider this 4th of July.
Maybe this disastrous reality will cause enough soul searching to transform the American populace from political hobbyists into savvy political participants?
Or if not, maybe the reality of hobbyist leaders and citizenry will result in a critical mass of destruction which will awaken Americans to the fact that democracy, perhaps more than any other form of government, does not run on autopilot. Its power derives from constant and active vigilance such as voting, protesting, bringing legal actions and sometimes fighting.
Something to consider this 4th of July.
1
Rick Perry has no expertise? Do you make that claim for all former Governors or just him?
This is the oldest problem in the hills, dressed up as sophisticated snark against opinionators who live on the sidelines but don't like the dirty work of politics. The truth is that middle class activists since the days of the abolitionist movement in this country have always been up against enduring party machinists whose whole motive consists in the profit they get from running the machinery. They instinctively hate issue activists; they will always pose resistance to new blood and new faces and they react, as the feminist machinists have reacted--angrily-- when reasonable people suggest that the Democrats have painted themselves into a corner by their nearly exclusive identification with social and cultural radicalism. It is a separate question how former radicals become machinists, but one issue here is the bitter but mostly submerged question about which direction the Democratic Party will take in dealing with the insane reactionary direction of the Republican Party in recent years. Even so, ridding the country of Trumpism is going to require a very broad and much deeper coalition of forces than now exists and I for one have no idea how to do it.
2
Historians of the future will say of the Trump presidency that when Democrats failed to bring him down, Twitter succeeded.
1
Mr. Hersh is is on target with his analysis.
Need further proof?
Take a poll of our social-media addicted millennials and ask what were they doing last November 8th.
....and the likely answer would be - anything other than voting.
Need further proof?
Take a poll of our social-media addicted millennials and ask what were they doing last November 8th.
....and the likely answer would be - anything other than voting.
2
This reads to me like, "I'm a political scientist. Get off my lawn!" The author doesn't justify his assertion that people who show up for demonstrations are the same people who don't vote in primaries. And showing up when things are going badly but not when they are running smoothly is normal, not a sign of dilettante behavior. The idea that all those people showing up to complain about the Republican health bill had no effect on the outcome thus far does not ring true for me.
4
Dear Prof Hersh, please do not tell me how I am invested and participate in our nations political activities. The use of the word "hobbyist" to define an involvement with issues and laws that impact our lives is condescending and trivial. Talking about our difficulty with civil conversation in our nation and how social media has run amok on this subject is another beast and needs to be addressed. You do us all a disservice with your tagging us all "hobbyists".
3
The major component that this interesting article fails, I think, to take into account is the fact that MANY of us are so fundamentally and terminally disgusted with the Democratic Party that our activism will need to be channeled via some new mechanism. The establishment Democrats have shown us that they dont respect us and they have no inclination to reform their hubris and corruption, which is what lost us the presidential election. To simply repeat the ailing DNC-led exercise can only yield the same failure. As long as the GOP and the establishment Dems have a LOCK on power that excludes other political options, democracy in this country will continue to wither and die.
Growing up, politics was the biggest sports entertainment we had. That was true in Europe and true in North Africa. There is nothing new about that. It is still that way in a weakened form because of social media witch tends to be more narcissistic and self gazing, due to prosperity and stability. The minute serious social unrest increases politics will take the center stage as it should.
I will take democracy even in its worse form before I settle for any other form of government. Education is the only guarantee to perpetuate democracy in its better form . So, it is imperative to preserve the Free Press and pursue the truth at any cost.
I will take democracy even in its worse form before I settle for any other form of government. Education is the only guarantee to perpetuate democracy in its better form . So, it is imperative to preserve the Free Press and pursue the truth at any cost.
1
And I thought the problem with participatory Democracy was with the largest stakeholders: religion, corporations and government.
3
Participatory democracy is the most important ingredient of democracy. Don't trash democracy with cheap shot.
The problem with democracy is that the news media only tell partial truth but not the whole truth. The incomplete truth make any subject debatable, and put voters in dilemma that it is hard to decide what to vote.
For example of healthcare, everyone knows universal healthcare is important and individual cost should come down. But due to incomplete information, our elected officials cannot make a mind to solve such a simple problem.
I do not see this kind of problem in any other developed countries except us. We should publish and vote those people against universal healthcare and cost reduction. No excuse please. Just do it.
I would say the biggest problem of democracy is "without term limitation" of the elected congressional delegates if we cannot solve the simple healthcare problem.
The problem with democracy is that the news media only tell partial truth but not the whole truth. The incomplete truth make any subject debatable, and put voters in dilemma that it is hard to decide what to vote.
For example of healthcare, everyone knows universal healthcare is important and individual cost should come down. But due to incomplete information, our elected officials cannot make a mind to solve such a simple problem.
I do not see this kind of problem in any other developed countries except us. We should publish and vote those people against universal healthcare and cost reduction. No excuse please. Just do it.
I would say the biggest problem of democracy is "without term limitation" of the elected congressional delegates if we cannot solve the simple healthcare problem.
Until we have more Americans participate in the administration of our nation, we will not see a return to democracy. Gerrymandering and money now shape our politics, and seem to be almost accepted as the norm. Get out of your comfort zone, America. Raise your voices and exercise your right to demonstration, resistance, and VOTE!!!
3
The third rail of American political discourse is the sacrosanct nature of the American voter. You can diss the parties, the politicians, the media all you want, but no commentator can ever, ever, ever say part of the problem lies with Americans themselves. I see this same, predictable response in most of the comments here.
I, for one, agree that in most respects the old staying still holds: Americans get the kind of leadership they deserve. Therefore, if we do not like the leadership we have, it would probably do well to do a little self examination. Now, nobody, no even the author of the piece, is saying there's anything necessarily wrong with watching clips satirizing politicians you don't like, or having discussions about politics on social media. As long as you understand that all the sharing of this or that "epic takedown" clips in the world is no substitute for actually voting.
And I recognize that plenty of people watch The Daily Show and still vote, that they do not think that sharing on Facebook or signing an online petition is the same thing as heading out to the polls, volunteering at a phone bank, or canvasing neighborhoods. But the fact remains, as the author points out, 2014 saw perhaps the lowest voter turnout in recent memory, despite almost constant online sharing of clips of Jon Stewart "eviscerating" this hypocritical politician or that. So we can't count on social media and satire alone to lead us forward.
I, for one, agree that in most respects the old staying still holds: Americans get the kind of leadership they deserve. Therefore, if we do not like the leadership we have, it would probably do well to do a little self examination. Now, nobody, no even the author of the piece, is saying there's anything necessarily wrong with watching clips satirizing politicians you don't like, or having discussions about politics on social media. As long as you understand that all the sharing of this or that "epic takedown" clips in the world is no substitute for actually voting.
And I recognize that plenty of people watch The Daily Show and still vote, that they do not think that sharing on Facebook or signing an online petition is the same thing as heading out to the polls, volunteering at a phone bank, or canvasing neighborhoods. But the fact remains, as the author points out, 2014 saw perhaps the lowest voter turnout in recent memory, despite almost constant online sharing of clips of Jon Stewart "eviscerating" this hypocritical politician or that. So we can't count on social media and satire alone to lead us forward.
Hersh's opinion piece is condescending, and out of touch with the realities of everyday life for working folks.
In most communities of working folk and professionals, people are not home long enough to know their neighbor's first name let alone participate in public policy because they are at work or stuck in commuter traffic. It is the lack of time and energy (And expertise) that creates a business opportunity for lobbyist firms who get paid to do the participation for you. Except most Americans do not have the money to pay for the service. The rich do, and that is why they often have the most influence on public policy rather than the everyday working person.
In a "Click Bait," driven media culture to attract readers headlines often focus on political theater and reaction rather than actual policy. So, that is what folks tend to read and discuss most. I find it very hypocritical of Mr. Hersh to throw readers under the bus in the media and then use the media to heighten his profile so that he can sell his book, in fact, looking to profit from the behaviors, he is criticizing.
If Mr. Hersh is serious about his concerns, and the data does show low political participation rates, maybe he should write a book Called How to participate in politics for the working parent. And spend his time leading by example rather than guilting the readers of the New York Times so that people will buy his book.
AMH
In most communities of working folk and professionals, people are not home long enough to know their neighbor's first name let alone participate in public policy because they are at work or stuck in commuter traffic. It is the lack of time and energy (And expertise) that creates a business opportunity for lobbyist firms who get paid to do the participation for you. Except most Americans do not have the money to pay for the service. The rich do, and that is why they often have the most influence on public policy rather than the everyday working person.
In a "Click Bait," driven media culture to attract readers headlines often focus on political theater and reaction rather than actual policy. So, that is what folks tend to read and discuss most. I find it very hypocritical of Mr. Hersh to throw readers under the bus in the media and then use the media to heighten his profile so that he can sell his book, in fact, looking to profit from the behaviors, he is criticizing.
If Mr. Hersh is serious about his concerns, and the data does show low political participation rates, maybe he should write a book Called How to participate in politics for the working parent. And spend his time leading by example rather than guilting the readers of the New York Times so that people will buy his book.
AMH
6
Mr. Hersh, in the manner of many (most?) political science professors, has tried to find a new and different hypothesis to explain the 2016 election. His goal is very likely to get someone to publish it and bask in the notoriety (and possible future salary increase). He thus came up with "political hobbyism". Then he devised a definition of it that is both somewhat applicable and conveniently comprehensive enough to resist easy contradiction. At that point his method was simply to subject a selected series of facts to support his hypothesis. Bingo! An article in the New York Times. Other readers (the NYT recommended ones) have clearly described his errors; those having to do with low voting turnout, uncontrolled campaign financing, the sports orientation of most news media, and the lack of political party vetting of candidates.
3
It seems to me, that the current problems with American democracy have something to do with the "SUPREME" court having sold out the rules of engagement. And the ease of forgetting, again, a need to abolish the electoral college, instituted to give slaves 2/3 of a vote, or something like that. And that the Congress has morphed into an "alternate America" club without term limits. There are some idols that cannot be overturned by an army of ants... But this article points out a scary trend in media driven distraction, for sure. And it applies quite forcefully to journalists...
1
I get your point, but I don't think it's a matter of fun v. not fun. Politics has become a cesspool of negativity, cynicism, and constant conflict. For me, it's civic duty v. the need to maintain a certain level of quietude and balance in life.
2
There are other ways of looking at problems--and there are problems--with our form of participatory democracy: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/more-professionalis... ("More professionalism, less populism: How voting makes us stupid, and what to do about it" by Rauch and Wittes).
Expanding one person, one vote does not seem to working that well--but problems do not seem to just relate to new voters, if we look at what has transpired. Voter ignorance is hardly new. And they are more and more "educated." Suffrage has been more and more inclusive.
We remain uncertain as to precise causes of escalating tribalism, but we see it. Some of it relates to rising economic inequality, and that feeds xenophobia. Could it be that the more we feed direct democracy the worse we get?
Rauch and Wittes state that there is nothing to show that more voter participation, at least in recent years, produces better outcomes. They note that what "...parties and political intermediaries do, when they work as they should: by gathering multiple (often conflicting) strands of public opinion, balancing multiple interests, injecting expert knowledge, taking a longer view, and then submitting the results to the American public."
We are attacking our own entrenched institutions and the value of serious expertise. I do not know how we get out of these behaviors. They are now encouraged by our outlandish president and several of his closest advisers.
Expanding one person, one vote does not seem to working that well--but problems do not seem to just relate to new voters, if we look at what has transpired. Voter ignorance is hardly new. And they are more and more "educated." Suffrage has been more and more inclusive.
We remain uncertain as to precise causes of escalating tribalism, but we see it. Some of it relates to rising economic inequality, and that feeds xenophobia. Could it be that the more we feed direct democracy the worse we get?
Rauch and Wittes state that there is nothing to show that more voter participation, at least in recent years, produces better outcomes. They note that what "...parties and political intermediaries do, when they work as they should: by gathering multiple (often conflicting) strands of public opinion, balancing multiple interests, injecting expert knowledge, taking a longer view, and then submitting the results to the American public."
We are attacking our own entrenched institutions and the value of serious expertise. I do not know how we get out of these behaviors. They are now encouraged by our outlandish president and several of his closest advisers.
more and more and ever more handwringing that wouldn't be taking place but for one fact: enough voters were turned off by Mrs. Clinton to have elected the horrific default alternative... if she had instead won a few more states, none of this Democrat soul-searching and questioning of democracy itself would be necessary... the key is not less "hobbyists" but instead the emergence of a Democrat candidate who is less tainted by a target-rich personal history and style
The U.S. is a broken democracy and is beyond repair. Years ago, the John Birch Society was considered a lunatic fringe group--- today, they are the ones in complete control of our federal government and most state governments. I don't see the return of reason and rationality as a possibility any time soon.
3
"In fact, it is not because of gerrymandering, Citizens United, cable news or any of the other common scapegoats that our system is broken"
Really? Then why isn't the woman who got the most votes sitting in the White House right now?
If our system was based on nothing more than simple fairness, lazy hobbyism and instant gratification would be all the activism Democrats would need. In a fair democracy, the Democratic Party itself would look much more like America and much less like the GOP. The system isn't just broken, it's rigged. Power has been hijacked from the many by the few, and that means, sadly, the majority must work much harder than the privileged minority. But don't blame the victim. Blame the perpetrators.
Really? Then why isn't the woman who got the most votes sitting in the White House right now?
If our system was based on nothing more than simple fairness, lazy hobbyism and instant gratification would be all the activism Democrats would need. In a fair democracy, the Democratic Party itself would look much more like America and much less like the GOP. The system isn't just broken, it's rigged. Power has been hijacked from the many by the few, and that means, sadly, the majority must work much harder than the privileged minority. But don't blame the victim. Blame the perpetrators.
2
a) The system is not broken. It works as intended. YOU just don't like the outcome.
b) The electoral college is why Hillary didn't win despite the popular vote.
c) The electoral college served its purpose to prevent the eastern and western seaboards from determining elections for the rest of the regionally diverse people across the country. You cannot win an election by appealing to only small but highly populated areas.
d) The biggest differentiation between a Republican and a Democrats is that Democrats hate personal responsibility. This can even be seen in the way the Democrats want to blame everyone but themselves for their loss in the 2016 election. Blame your party, not the system.
b) The electoral college is why Hillary didn't win despite the popular vote.
c) The electoral college served its purpose to prevent the eastern and western seaboards from determining elections for the rest of the regionally diverse people across the country. You cannot win an election by appealing to only small but highly populated areas.
d) The biggest differentiation between a Republican and a Democrats is that Democrats hate personal responsibility. This can even be seen in the way the Democrats want to blame everyone but themselves for their loss in the 2016 election. Blame your party, not the system.
1
What? Sorry, not enough shouting. All I got was the "you" part. Leave caps lock on at all times, OK? Just like they taught in English class.
1
The issue is not participatory democracy, our problem is one party trying to do it all. Doesn't matter if putting in health care or the pendulum moving the other way to take it out, when one party tries to do it alone it is not an American democracy.
The greatest danger now has nothing to do with policy, but the unhinging of a narcissistic president and the one party in control, still blowing on a lit explosive. Senator McConnell and Speaker Ryan are the biggest threats to our democracy at this time. Yes, voters may be lazy intellectually, but Senators and Congressmen must do better as they have been elected to do.
The greatest danger now has nothing to do with policy, but the unhinging of a narcissistic president and the one party in control, still blowing on a lit explosive. Senator McConnell and Speaker Ryan are the biggest threats to our democracy at this time. Yes, voters may be lazy intellectually, but Senators and Congressmen must do better as they have been elected to do.
2
"Pleasure," Mr. Hersh? You think circulating petitions is fun, participating in phone banks, fun? Donating money, such as to the Ossoff campaign, even though we found that particular campaign's pitch for money oafish and misleading -- fun?
You are seriously mistaken about the political "hobbyist." She/he is showing up at town halls to address what is malignantly wrong about public policy. Denying poor people health care? Why do we even have to insist on it?
We don't do the gruntier work of political activism because we have jobs -- other jobs to attend to.
As to the low turnout in American elections -- I don't know which party affiliate is guiltier, but perhaps we need paid holidays to vote, or make it a mandatory exercise with penalty/fine consequences, as do the Australians. Oh, people will crow that it takes away our "freedom," but look what we have now.
Your nostalgia for earlier alliances is understandable, but the digital culture erases those regional, community norms of decades ago.
You are seriously mistaken about the political "hobbyist." She/he is showing up at town halls to address what is malignantly wrong about public policy. Denying poor people health care? Why do we even have to insist on it?
We don't do the gruntier work of political activism because we have jobs -- other jobs to attend to.
As to the low turnout in American elections -- I don't know which party affiliate is guiltier, but perhaps we need paid holidays to vote, or make it a mandatory exercise with penalty/fine consequences, as do the Australians. Oh, people will crow that it takes away our "freedom," but look what we have now.
Your nostalgia for earlier alliances is understandable, but the digital culture erases those regional, community norms of decades ago.
3
A ridiculous argument. The real problem with American democracy? The total lock down of ballot access by the republicans and democrats. Two parties which are bereft of ideas, unable to govern, and essentially dead and rotting. The people of France just demonstrated that when you live in a system where it is possible to throw out the old and irrelevant, the people are perfectly capable of doing so. But when two zombie parties have a stranglehold on the political process, nothing can change.
1
I just got this email from Ben and Jerry’s Icecream:
“More money than ever floods politics in the age of Trump While he distracts us with his scandals and tweets, the richest 1%, corporations, and lobbyists are more influential than ever behind the scenes, getting their way on the issues and buying our elections—while pushing the rest of us to the sidelines.
So what do we do about it? One word: RESIST. This time by stamping (and then spending) dollar bills with a simple message: "Resist Money in Politics—Amend the Constitution." (It's perfectly legal.)
Stamping every single paper bill that you spend is a powerful way to get our resistance message against Trump and the broken Congress out there.
Each stamped bill will be seen an average of 875 times while it's in circulation….a lot of "bang for your buck!" As your bills circulate, so will your message about reclaiming our democracy.”
Send $15 to MoveOn and get your own "Resist Big Money In Politics—Amend the Constitution" stamp.
Great idea. But what a weak democracy the US is now, that we have to circulate stamped bills to take back our country from elite interests. Once the world's greatest democracy. I’ll mail one to the justices of the Supreme Court.
This is what our TV News media and NYT should be discussing every single day, related to all the issues. But it’s mostly blacked out. The Times op ed page doesn’t seem to be interested. Wonder why.
“More money than ever floods politics in the age of Trump While he distracts us with his scandals and tweets, the richest 1%, corporations, and lobbyists are more influential than ever behind the scenes, getting their way on the issues and buying our elections—while pushing the rest of us to the sidelines.
So what do we do about it? One word: RESIST. This time by stamping (and then spending) dollar bills with a simple message: "Resist Money in Politics—Amend the Constitution." (It's perfectly legal.)
Stamping every single paper bill that you spend is a powerful way to get our resistance message against Trump and the broken Congress out there.
Each stamped bill will be seen an average of 875 times while it's in circulation….a lot of "bang for your buck!" As your bills circulate, so will your message about reclaiming our democracy.”
Send $15 to MoveOn and get your own "Resist Big Money In Politics—Amend the Constitution" stamp.
Great idea. But what a weak democracy the US is now, that we have to circulate stamped bills to take back our country from elite interests. Once the world's greatest democracy. I’ll mail one to the justices of the Supreme Court.
This is what our TV News media and NYT should be discussing every single day, related to all the issues. But it’s mostly blacked out. The Times op ed page doesn’t seem to be interested. Wonder why.
2
So what do we do about it? One word: RESIST. This time by stamping (and then spending) dollar bills with a simple message: "Resist Money in Politics—Amend the Constitution." (It's perfectly legal.)
=======================
It's perfectly illegal under 18 USC 333
=======================
It's perfectly illegal under 18 USC 333
Participatory democracy works fine when those participating are a diverse group whose various interests must be balanced. It doesn't work so well when the participants are a handful of balmy billionaires who determine the issues and the candidates, none of which have any impact on the welfare of their puppet masters and none of which benefit the populace.
8
a handful of balmy billionaires who determine the issues and the candidates
For Leftist nihilists, billionaires are terrifying examples of the independence and practicality of man's mind. They are a moral reproach to the impotent worshippers of nuances and totalitarian politics.
For Leftist nihilists, billionaires are terrifying examples of the independence and practicality of man's mind. They are a moral reproach to the impotent worshippers of nuances and totalitarian politics.
1
Political participation is contagious. People who watch cable news shows post more political material on Facebook or Twitter. People who post online sign petitions and start sending letters to their representatives. People who send letter go to town halls. They meet others with views and concerns similar to their own. Eventually they channel their energies into voting. They register, they recruit, they help Get Out The Vote. They are the foot soldiers of democracy. I could care less if they start out as "hobbyists."
By demeaning this modern but effective path to political mobilization, Mr. Hersh exposes himself as the problem with participatory democracy - the complacent, condescending side-liner who (one hopes, unintentionally) sits on his front porch and complains about the parade marching by. One little thing leads to another. That's really the only hope we have in the dark times that are now upon us.
By demeaning this modern but effective path to political mobilization, Mr. Hersh exposes himself as the problem with participatory democracy - the complacent, condescending side-liner who (one hopes, unintentionally) sits on his front porch and complains about the parade marching by. One little thing leads to another. That's really the only hope we have in the dark times that are now upon us.
15
To start lobbying ourselves, pick one single issue that resonates most broadly across all ideological lines, say the egregious taxation on middle class people as compared to the wealthy. Just an example, could be chosen by weighted ballot with $1000 max donation.
So if we could assemble just 2 million people, 0.67% of the population and came to an agreement that we would each put $1000 in escrow and if we don't reach 2 million that have joined it by a certain date then all the money gets returned. That way we either get a party with a single clearly articulated goal stated beforehand that has $2 billion dollars behind it or we just get our money back in time to give to our tired old favorite D/R campaign.
I think 1 out of every 150 Americans could realistically put together $1000 without much effort. And $2 Billion won't run a whole party, but it might make that group a kingmaker. If you really look at political donations, I don't think its that much considering the amount of power it buys. Its just that our separate $1000 voices with 1000 issues get drowned out by $1,000,000 dollar voices with a single issue. So lets stop playing the winner take all political game and start playing the single issue money game. $1000 dollar donors can't pick a president, but 2 million of them can get the biggest issue that causes our collective disgust to get changed.
So if we could assemble just 2 million people, 0.67% of the population and came to an agreement that we would each put $1000 in escrow and if we don't reach 2 million that have joined it by a certain date then all the money gets returned. That way we either get a party with a single clearly articulated goal stated beforehand that has $2 billion dollars behind it or we just get our money back in time to give to our tired old favorite D/R campaign.
I think 1 out of every 150 Americans could realistically put together $1000 without much effort. And $2 Billion won't run a whole party, but it might make that group a kingmaker. If you really look at political donations, I don't think its that much considering the amount of power it buys. Its just that our separate $1000 voices with 1000 issues get drowned out by $1,000,000 dollar voices with a single issue. So lets stop playing the winner take all political game and start playing the single issue money game. $1000 dollar donors can't pick a president, but 2 million of them can get the biggest issue that causes our collective disgust to get changed.
2
I think it would be very useful work to try to register some of the many unregistered voters. I believe that many of the people hurt most by the current crop of Republicans don't vote. A 10% increase in Democratic registration nationwide would lead to a Democratic landslide.
Any ideas on how to start a mass movement voter registration drive?
Any ideas on how to start a mass movement voter registration drive?
4
I wonder if "A" is the grade most often given at Tufts and especially in classes taught by Eitan Hersh. It does not matter if good voting decisions are boring, demanding and slow or exciting, easy, and quick, as long as the voter can think clearly and make wise decisions what really benefits the country. Voters would not vote against their own best interests if they were truly educated. The decline of education at all levels in this country has been going on for decades. We demand A grades, diplomas and degrees but not education. Of course, if the voters often see the entertainment side of politics and governing as most important, then we can blame ourselves for allowing simplistic thinking and not rigorous critical thinking to undermine us. With DeVos in charge and the rules for Trump-like universities back in play, our citizens will grow dumber and will vote for more Trumps. We have entered the dark ages of education and democracy.
13
In the process of learning anything new it's generally accepted that telling the learner they are "doing it wrong" is unhelpful particularly through a lens of purported pseudo-intellectualism and sorry assumptions regarding experience, ability and resources of the learner.
As a largely disenfranchised proletariat, the American people need encouragement and not criticism as they learn and fold political thought and participation skills into their lives. Many are, at long last and perhaps for the first time in their lives, learning how to engage in the ways that are at hand. This could not be more important, serving a vital purpose in developing a sense of civic responsibility.
The precise science and successful outcomes of voter suppression threatens our struggling democracy and frankly if we are choosing to defend it we need everyone to stand up whether they are new to politics or have a deep and rich history of engagement. Let's encourage rather than criticize a rising interest in how our government works and how to become involved in it as an active member of American society.
As a largely disenfranchised proletariat, the American people need encouragement and not criticism as they learn and fold political thought and participation skills into their lives. Many are, at long last and perhaps for the first time in their lives, learning how to engage in the ways that are at hand. This could not be more important, serving a vital purpose in developing a sense of civic responsibility.
The precise science and successful outcomes of voter suppression threatens our struggling democracy and frankly if we are choosing to defend it we need everyone to stand up whether they are new to politics or have a deep and rich history of engagement. Let's encourage rather than criticize a rising interest in how our government works and how to become involved in it as an active member of American society.
13
Little to argue with here. A missing point - we no longer teach "Civics" in high school, or earlier. Even when it was taught- it could have been taught much better.
Maybe we need a good new video game- that teaches the consequences of not voting, not participating...
Maybe we need a good new video game- that teaches the consequences of not voting, not participating...
7
We're already living it. Some people refuse to wake up.
1
USA trails in voter turnout compared to other countries—Pew Research. Why?
Those other countries also don’t turn their election campaigns over to top corporations and billionaires for financing, Many use more public financing, free media time, no privately funded ads, and short campaigns.
Thus their parties and platforms are freed up to be more responsive to public needs---the whole purpose of having a democracy in the 1st place.
When will the NY Times run any op eds discussing this major factor in low turnout? Govt of by and for the 1 Percent? Easier to scold the US public for not voting, not being informed, yada.
The stats on how much of our national wealth is owned by the top few are staggering. Our big profit, ratings obsessed media never talks about this. And, our public TV and radio is deliberately under funded by congress, so it must go to big corporations for funding.
What effect does this have on the range of political solutions we get discussed? Medicare for all and the public option, common in dozens of nations, are off the table here for discussion. Have you noticed that?
This sets up a pattern of voter cynicism, passivity and disgust.
Those other countries also don’t turn their election campaigns over to top corporations and billionaires for financing, Many use more public financing, free media time, no privately funded ads, and short campaigns.
Thus their parties and platforms are freed up to be more responsive to public needs---the whole purpose of having a democracy in the 1st place.
When will the NY Times run any op eds discussing this major factor in low turnout? Govt of by and for the 1 Percent? Easier to scold the US public for not voting, not being informed, yada.
The stats on how much of our national wealth is owned by the top few are staggering. Our big profit, ratings obsessed media never talks about this. And, our public TV and radio is deliberately under funded by congress, so it must go to big corporations for funding.
What effect does this have on the range of political solutions we get discussed? Medicare for all and the public option, common in dozens of nations, are off the table here for discussion. Have you noticed that?
This sets up a pattern of voter cynicism, passivity and disgust.
10
I'm gratified that Mr. Hersh seems to recognize that implementing primary elections was a disaster for democracy. But it's a little late for the political science establishment to wake up to that fact. Americans today as a rule believe that democracy is about elections and more elections. Today's candidates are mass marketed consumer goods only as viable as the money raised to buy an ad campaign.
Hersh seems to pine for the days of neighbor-to-neighbor political communication. But has he actually ever tried that? Most Americans don't know their neighbors' names, let alone have the kind of relationship with them that would make their political views credible. And if BLM really is political authenticity, as Hersh suggests, than democracy is long past its shelf life.
For those of us who care about public affairs, the only thing we've got are these peer-to-peer networks in which we try to shape the opinions of our fellows. Seriously, nothing else matters. Donald Trump proved that by defeating the world's most perfect campaign with a succession of tweet-storms. It's painful to realize that our sclerotic democracy has come to this.
Hersh seems to pine for the days of neighbor-to-neighbor political communication. But has he actually ever tried that? Most Americans don't know their neighbors' names, let alone have the kind of relationship with them that would make their political views credible. And if BLM really is political authenticity, as Hersh suggests, than democracy is long past its shelf life.
For those of us who care about public affairs, the only thing we've got are these peer-to-peer networks in which we try to shape the opinions of our fellows. Seriously, nothing else matters. Donald Trump proved that by defeating the world's most perfect campaign with a succession of tweet-storms. It's painful to realize that our sclerotic democracy has come to this.
45
Hillary Clinton's campaign was not a perfect campaign, nor was she a perfect campaign. Her sell by date had long passed.
Like others here, I also think that Mr. Hesch's description of "politics as hobby" is accurate. But I also think that it is unrealistic to expect that most people would go beyond the "hobby level".
In fact, I think that the mere fact that people perceive the importance of political activism (regardless of the act on this perception) is a very positive force. The problem lies in the lack of leaders among the Democratic Party capable to channel and use this very positive force.
I see no leader in the Democratic Party right now capable to coalesce people's innate sense of activism and desire to change into a positive force, capable of reshaping our political discourse and landscape. I think most lay-person democrats would ready to follow the directions of a leader right now and being a coherent political action. t is just that there isn't any leader. In fact, I strongly suspect that few, if any, among the Party's leadership are even capable of the excellent analysis of their voters' attitude toward political activism expressed by Dr. Hersh. They are to busy to play the "Washington game" to think about these things.
In fact, I think that the mere fact that people perceive the importance of political activism (regardless of the act on this perception) is a very positive force. The problem lies in the lack of leaders among the Democratic Party capable to channel and use this very positive force.
I see no leader in the Democratic Party right now capable to coalesce people's innate sense of activism and desire to change into a positive force, capable of reshaping our political discourse and landscape. I think most lay-person democrats would ready to follow the directions of a leader right now and being a coherent political action. t is just that there isn't any leader. In fact, I strongly suspect that few, if any, among the Party's leadership are even capable of the excellent analysis of their voters' attitude toward political activism expressed by Dr. Hersh. They are to busy to play the "Washington game" to think about these things.
3
Did it ever occur to you that "government" exists outside of Washington.
Because, myopic views such as yours are the prime reason that the majority of local and state governments are in GOP hands.
MG, instead of looking for a savior from Washington, try looking local.
Because, nothing will change in Washington until you start changing hearts and minds on the local and states levels by convincing the voters that a person with a (D) on their back is the best person for the job..
Because, myopic views such as yours are the prime reason that the majority of local and state governments are in GOP hands.
MG, instead of looking for a savior from Washington, try looking local.
Because, nothing will change in Washington until you start changing hearts and minds on the local and states levels by convincing the voters that a person with a (D) on their back is the best person for the job..
It is not our politics that are broken but our governance. Our politics do not discriminate between governing and political activism. That is what needs fixing. Donald Trump is the most perfect possible example of this difficult perception. He does politics but cannot do governing.
3
Mr. Hersh's first mistake is that this country isn't a democracy but a constitutional republic.
Our Founders were classically trained and were familiar with the horrifying history of political discord in ancient Greek city-states. A democracy was the last thing they wanted.
Our Founders were classically trained and were familiar with the horrifying history of political discord in ancient Greek city-states. A democracy was the last thing they wanted.
6
Please. This is a Luddite argument that essentially says that if it's online it's a hobby and if it's in person it must perforce be more real. Obviously, healthy democracy depends on voters actually turning up to the polls, and one of the great problems with American democracy is that fewer and fewer people are doing so. But this piece rests on the entirely unsupported argument that somehow people using technology to make their voices heard when there isn't an election being held is CAUSING people not to vote when there is an election. There just isn't any evidence of that being the case. I don't have any evidence either, but I would guess that all this Facebook, Twitter, Resistbot advocacy is the 21st century version what Mr. Hersh calls "neighbor-to-neighbor persuasion" and that by sending politicians emails, citizens are giving those politicians invaluable contact information they can use as we head toward 2018. But if I were Mr. Hersh, I think I would wait until there was an actual election before I declared that this outpouring of online advocacy is causing voter engagement to dwindle.
11
Brooklyn Person, did it ever occur to you it far easier to ignore what you have to say if all I "see" of you is your anonymous online posts, verses having a face-face convesation with you?
You might try the "luddite" way, it does work.
You might try the "luddite" way, it does work.
1
After global warming, America's biggest problem is the mutual contempt and hatred of our political-religious-economic factions. So the most important question to be answered is how can we reunite our nation into one characterized by mutual respect. My answer is by working together. Their are many issues which we all perceive to be troubling problems, e.g., our decaying dams and our discouraged youth. Forget politics for a while. we don't need politicians to get together to fix these problems and working together is the most potent way to engender friendship.
7
Mr. Hersh's attack on the millions of people who are now actively engaged in politics using every tool available to them is as harmful to Democracy as it is misguided. Who is he to declare that these activists feel no 'profound moral obligation?' Who is he to declare that responding on facebook does not help build a political movement? Of course it is a 'hobby' for anyone who is not employed full-time in the political arena. I am grateful that so many people have now found the time for and taken up this hobby. My only regret is that there are untold millions more who have not.
24
How about they lead? They have no desire to lead and have been rejected through the constitutional process. How about follow? Resistance is not following and mostly they have no real proposals to improve things. How about get out of the way? They won't because they believe resistance is a great strategy. So they need to be moved out of the way by whatever legal means necessary. Very Simple!!!
4
Good democracy requires an educated informed electorate making responsible choices. Democracy falls apart when the electorate makes decisions based on incorrect information and deeply seated prejudices. If the United States wants to recover there needs to be action from the top to fight disinformation and prejudices. The Trump administration is going the other way, reinforcing prejudices and pumping out the disinformation at high volume.
15
Good point but when almost all media refuses to actually report without bias it is difficult to do. Progressives are a major source of biased news, so biased than thinking people will reject anything they say. Address that, and Trump is not pumping out disinformation.
2
Although Mr. Hersh makes a number of interesting points, I believe that he's missed the mark when it comes to pinpointing the problem with participatory democracy. Specifically, the Constitution did not explicitly take into account the rise of political parties; instead, in Federalist number 10, James Madison discussed the problem of groups of individuals with a specific agenda (which he called factions), and he argued that these factions (more than two) would eventually come together to pass acceptable legislation.
Now we have exactly two factions: the Democrats and the Republican whose agendas have almost no common ground. As a result, whichever party can muster a mere fifty percent of each house of Congress can pass legislation, and if a few seats flip in an election the other party can completely control legislation and reverse the bills passed by the other party. The founders never envisioned this type of discord; and I'd like to suggest that the only viable way to move forward would be to require that all legislation must pass with at least 65% of each house. Of course, this would require a Constitutional amendment which is highly unlikely, but without such an amendment we will continue to be mired, for the foreseeable future, in the hideous mess we are currently in.
Now we have exactly two factions: the Democrats and the Republican whose agendas have almost no common ground. As a result, whichever party can muster a mere fifty percent of each house of Congress can pass legislation, and if a few seats flip in an election the other party can completely control legislation and reverse the bills passed by the other party. The founders never envisioned this type of discord; and I'd like to suggest that the only viable way to move forward would be to require that all legislation must pass with at least 65% of each house. Of course, this would require a Constitutional amendment which is highly unlikely, but without such an amendment we will continue to be mired, for the foreseeable future, in the hideous mess we are currently in.
5
The author presumes that political hobbyism is what Americans want, but maybe it is all they can afford, time-wise. When you are working 2 jobs, and your spouse is working 3, and you still can't pay your bills, there isn't much time for politics. More than 40% of Americans are upside down - that is, in debt. 99% of all new wealth in the past 20 years went to the 1%.
Americans are working harder than ever for a country that stopped working for them long ago. No one elected Mitch McConnell. to prevent President Obama to have a second term, but when he openly stated it was his only focus, there was no outcry, no public rising up to assert that their needs should pre-empt his party ideology. Not because people didn't care but because they are too busy trying to survive. Very few Americans are at the top of Maslow's hierarchy...most are on the first rung, trying to keep a roof over their head and their kids fed, with less and less success.
Voting won't change anything, anyway. Research has shown that the wealthy and corporate interests are far more likely to shape policy than individuals, who are essentially powerless to change anything at all through the political system unless they gather and demonstrate, and even then, the odds are against them, with Republican senators seeking to slap peaceful protestors with civil asset forfeiture to discourage actual citizen participation in anything that looks like democracy. Hobbyism will have to do.
Americans are working harder than ever for a country that stopped working for them long ago. No one elected Mitch McConnell. to prevent President Obama to have a second term, but when he openly stated it was his only focus, there was no outcry, no public rising up to assert that their needs should pre-empt his party ideology. Not because people didn't care but because they are too busy trying to survive. Very few Americans are at the top of Maslow's hierarchy...most are on the first rung, trying to keep a roof over their head and their kids fed, with less and less success.
Voting won't change anything, anyway. Research has shown that the wealthy and corporate interests are far more likely to shape policy than individuals, who are essentially powerless to change anything at all through the political system unless they gather and demonstrate, and even then, the odds are against them, with Republican senators seeking to slap peaceful protestors with civil asset forfeiture to discourage actual citizen participation in anything that looks like democracy. Hobbyism will have to do.
18
Of course Bay Area.
"The author presumes that political hobbyism is what Americans want, but maybe it is all they can afford, time-wise. " This is pure, utter, nonsense. How do you think the eight-hour workday was won? Because 100+ years ago, industrialists who bitterly opposed the idea, nonetheless decided to give workers a little time off to advocate for the issue out of a sense of fair play? Or perhaps you believe that laborers played no part at all in the struggle, and that these reforms are purely the result of a benevolent, enlightened leisure class. Or maybe magical elves...
The "I have no time" excuse is a cop-out. We find the time for the things that are important to us. Sometimes it means making sacrifices. The great "progressive" reforms of the past, be it abolition, civil rights, suffrage, or labor laws or protections, were often won after the individuals who supported them made great personal sacrifice.
Every time, in the comments sections of articles and editorials such as these, I hear a litany of excuses for why liberal movements can't ever seem to reach the same critical momentum at the polls that the Tea Party or other conservative ones have: There's too much money in politics. The other side spreads too much misinformation and mean lies. Guess what: That's always been the case. If your strategy is to for optimal conditions before trying to make a change, you're going to find yourself waiting forever.
The "I have no time" excuse is a cop-out. We find the time for the things that are important to us. Sometimes it means making sacrifices. The great "progressive" reforms of the past, be it abolition, civil rights, suffrage, or labor laws or protections, were often won after the individuals who supported them made great personal sacrifice.
Every time, in the comments sections of articles and editorials such as these, I hear a litany of excuses for why liberal movements can't ever seem to reach the same critical momentum at the polls that the Tea Party or other conservative ones have: There's too much money in politics. The other side spreads too much misinformation and mean lies. Guess what: That's always been the case. If your strategy is to for optimal conditions before trying to make a change, you're going to find yourself waiting forever.
I was not surprised to find that the author is a professor of political science. The essay reeks of "you aren't doing it right" elitism, which is an occupational hazard in nearly all professions--but particularly academia. I happen to be an English teacher, so I know the condition well. While the professor can devote all his professional time to doing politics correctly (however he defines that), most of us don't have that luxury. We do what we can--and sometimes that means forwarding that video of Elizabeth Warren "destroying" Betsy to a kindred soul. We know it's not much, but it keeps alive the spirit that is a prerequisite for true involvement and true action. In short order, candidates will declare for office and campaigns will begin and bodies will be needed to knock on doors, plant signs, attend rallies and engage with the as-yet unengaged. The people who will carry out the ground game are the ones with a spirit that has been nurtured and validated through what the author rather dismissively refers to as our "hobby."
29
Blaming citizens instead of our big money legalized bribery per Citizens United –that’s the surest way to keep the gravy train going for the 1 percent.
Princeton’s Martin Gilens used records of congressional actions to prove that it is the preferences of the elites that direct our lawmaking, while the citizen majority is ignored.
Jimmy Carter says we veer toward oligarchy due to the cost of running for office. Where will the Dems get the money to beat Trump and Gop? The usual places. How will that keep policy within the confines the big donors set up? This is why we are the only developed nation without universal health care, paid family leave and other protections enjoyed abroad.
WE have the most expensive systems in the world for election funding, health care, and education. They are all big profit centers in the US. But these are seen as crucial public services that citizens deserve In operating democracies abroad, which are also capitalist,. There, they respect their citizens. Here, our citizens serve as scapegoats and are blamed for America’s severe problems.
NYT----we need better op eds than this in these perilous times.
Princeton’s Martin Gilens used records of congressional actions to prove that it is the preferences of the elites that direct our lawmaking, while the citizen majority is ignored.
Jimmy Carter says we veer toward oligarchy due to the cost of running for office. Where will the Dems get the money to beat Trump and Gop? The usual places. How will that keep policy within the confines the big donors set up? This is why we are the only developed nation without universal health care, paid family leave and other protections enjoyed abroad.
WE have the most expensive systems in the world for election funding, health care, and education. They are all big profit centers in the US. But these are seen as crucial public services that citizens deserve In operating democracies abroad, which are also capitalist,. There, they respect their citizens. Here, our citizens serve as scapegoats and are blamed for America’s severe problems.
NYT----we need better op eds than this in these perilous times.
27
There are many things individuals can do, which few are currently doing.
1. do you homework, most of the people I talk to on all sides vote for people they know nothing about. Past performance predicts future performance. What politicians have done in the past, they will do in the future. Voting for people you like but know nothing about .
2. when you find a politician with a good track record of performance (not just speeches) join their team and knock on doors.
3. identify one or two issues you really care about and become an expert, then teach your representatives.
4. vote in primaries, that is where all the action is
5. vote in off year elections.
1. do you homework, most of the people I talk to on all sides vote for people they know nothing about. Past performance predicts future performance. What politicians have done in the past, they will do in the future. Voting for people you like but know nothing about .
2. when you find a politician with a good track record of performance (not just speeches) join their team and knock on doors.
3. identify one or two issues you really care about and become an expert, then teach your representatives.
4. vote in primaries, that is where all the action is
5. vote in off year elections.
10
The Georgia runoff election between Handel and Ossoff was monstrously funded and highly publicized. So, in a district with about 526,000 registered voters in all, nearly half of them came out. Wowie, zowie, nearly half. Apparently, many political analysts were thrilled, thrilled I tell you, because that was 39% more turnout than usual!
When half the electorate is indifferent, there’s no nation. I shudder to think about what’s going on in our grade schools. Americans have no idea what this country is about. So, opportunistic billionaires, with the assistance of Citizens United, put their money out there to create this vision in people’s minds of what they, the billionaires, want this country to be to satisfy their own self interests. And people, including you apparently, don’t see that this is happening.
As far as cable news, you are again incorrect. Neighbors are suddenly willing to leave rational thought behind to believe Barack Obama is a Muslim terrorist. Yes, even here in Massachusetts. You just don’t see them from your ivory tower.
Gerrymandering? When more people vote for Democrats in congressional elections but end up with more Republicans in Congress, it’s a problem. Do Democrats do it? Sure, as long it’s not illegal, and apparently it’s not illegal if it’s done on the basis of partisanship, not race. The Republicans will go to the Supreme Court to argue that they never do it based on race. SCOTUS has disagreed.
Don’t blame the hobbyists.
When half the electorate is indifferent, there’s no nation. I shudder to think about what’s going on in our grade schools. Americans have no idea what this country is about. So, opportunistic billionaires, with the assistance of Citizens United, put their money out there to create this vision in people’s minds of what they, the billionaires, want this country to be to satisfy their own self interests. And people, including you apparently, don’t see that this is happening.
As far as cable news, you are again incorrect. Neighbors are suddenly willing to leave rational thought behind to believe Barack Obama is a Muslim terrorist. Yes, even here in Massachusetts. You just don’t see them from your ivory tower.
Gerrymandering? When more people vote for Democrats in congressional elections but end up with more Republicans in Congress, it’s a problem. Do Democrats do it? Sure, as long it’s not illegal, and apparently it’s not illegal if it’s done on the basis of partisanship, not race. The Republicans will go to the Supreme Court to argue that they never do it based on race. SCOTUS has disagreed.
Don’t blame the hobbyists.
14
Gerrymandering? When more people vote for Democrats in congressional elections but end up with more Republicans in Congress, it’s a problem.
====================
Which by the way, did not happen in 2016. Total Republican Congressional votes were 3 million more than Democrats
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/11/11/memo-to-liberals-repu...
====================
Which by the way, did not happen in 2016. Total Republican Congressional votes were 3 million more than Democrats
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/11/11/memo-to-liberals-repu...
1
Spreading rumors and fake news via social media is a new disease that has gripped the nation that is even worse than the blood=sport-style voyeurism that has been the hallmark of the most recent presidential primaries, particularly of the GOP. Trump understood this and build a powerful misinformation machine on that basis, possibly with the help of the Russians and other shady organizations (he loved Wikileaks for a reason). The TV media loved the disgraceful brawls because it increased their revenue - and they often hamstrung themselves having weak moderators who did not call out straight untruths. Worse they gave free publicity to Trump who fed them one scandalous statement or lie after the other according to the motto "all publicity is good publicity".
How to cope with this new affliction will be an important question to all of us.
How to cope with this new affliction will be an important question to all of us.
7
Add to they list of hobbyists Bernie Sanders, who has made an entire career out of criticizing the policies of both parties without any attempt to actually get his hands dirty in the process of making laws. He singlehandedly hijacked Clinton, whose actual experience had sullied her in the eyes of the hobbyists and who was never going to boil things down into the black-and-white, evil-versus-good worldview that they require.
10
Please,
Senator Sanders has actually made laws -- such as the Veterans bill that he and Senator McCain got passed, the Home Heating subsidy he has for the poor and senior citizens, and the community health care centers provided for in Obamacare. Then, there are the countless amendments that Bernie Sanders has attached to bills over the years (as both a Congressman and a Senator) have become law. Not for nothing is Bernie Sanders known as the Amendment King.
Senator Sanders represents a small but ideologically diverse State. He also represents a gun-rights State. He always hustles for votes and holds his town halls. He talks to both liberal and conservative voters. The Senator did not last 26 years in DC playing the purist. He is results oriented.
Bernie's other great success was his eight years as Mayor of Burlington (VT). He turned a small rust-belt city around. His mayoralty began with a hostile city council obsessed with making him serve one 2-year term. That did not work. Eventually, the Republicans began working with then Mayor Sanders progressive allies on the council to turn the city around. Yes! Republicans! Real, sane, moral Republicans.
Hillary Clinton's claim of "getting things done" rings false. The ratio of Bills introduced to Bills becoming law during the time that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders served together in the Senate are almost equal. She was trying to be slick.
That's why this former Republican, and many others follow Bernie.
Senator Sanders has actually made laws -- such as the Veterans bill that he and Senator McCain got passed, the Home Heating subsidy he has for the poor and senior citizens, and the community health care centers provided for in Obamacare. Then, there are the countless amendments that Bernie Sanders has attached to bills over the years (as both a Congressman and a Senator) have become law. Not for nothing is Bernie Sanders known as the Amendment King.
Senator Sanders represents a small but ideologically diverse State. He also represents a gun-rights State. He always hustles for votes and holds his town halls. He talks to both liberal and conservative voters. The Senator did not last 26 years in DC playing the purist. He is results oriented.
Bernie's other great success was his eight years as Mayor of Burlington (VT). He turned a small rust-belt city around. His mayoralty began with a hostile city council obsessed with making him serve one 2-year term. That did not work. Eventually, the Republicans began working with then Mayor Sanders progressive allies on the council to turn the city around. Yes! Republicans! Real, sane, moral Republicans.
Hillary Clinton's claim of "getting things done" rings false. The ratio of Bills introduced to Bills becoming law during the time that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders served together in the Senate are almost equal. She was trying to be slick.
That's why this former Republican, and many others follow Bernie.
Our politics are wrong because the rich are sucking up all the wealth. All else flows from there.
9
Vulcana,
Are you quite sure? Any independent verification for that?
The evidence here seems mixed.
Have a nice day.
Are you quite sure? Any independent verification for that?
The evidence here seems mixed.
Have a nice day.
To the Bastille! Time for a revolution to rid ourselves of the oligarchs. Prison time for the Kochs and all their ilk.
1
Was Mr. Hersh equally troubled when Obama won?
5
From behind his lectern, Professor Hersh has delivered a regular Sunday morning sermon: we are not truly serious, we are just hobbyism-ists.
3
Silly article. Political scientists know that the average citizen votes by party identification and knows little about policy and inner workings of DC politics - we just don't devote the time to it.
What put Trump in office is 30 years of GOP corruption and vicious, dishonest, attacks on the Democratic party. The result is a fake news industry, Fox News in the lead, that successfully persuaded millions of stunningly dumb fools that a know-nothing blowhard was going to bring them to the promised land.
Please don't waste our time with silly pieces like this.
What put Trump in office is 30 years of GOP corruption and vicious, dishonest, attacks on the Democratic party. The result is a fake news industry, Fox News in the lead, that successfully persuaded millions of stunningly dumb fools that a know-nothing blowhard was going to bring them to the promised land.
Please don't waste our time with silly pieces like this.
7
If you don't vote you are not a participant.
71
Yes you are. You are influencing the election outcome.
A barrier to activism in communities dominated by one strain of thought, like where I live, is that we generally know that our representatives in government are going to vote they way we want, so lobbying them or going to town halls is unnecessary.
3
That is correct around here as well, of course it is in opposition to your representatives. The resistance movement around here is small and rejects any rational discussion. That is dangerous if they actually had any power.
John from San Francisco, CA: Poor judgment on your part. Do you know that there are Utahns that cross the border of Western CO because they know their vote in UT won't count for progressive government. They spend money, travel, and time to help GOTV and fence sitters in CO because they know progressive votes are much more likely here. In other words to your particular reasoning, don't bother to go to neighboring counties or states when they really could use your help in getting the fence sitters off of the proverbial fence. Our Supreme Court has been ransomed for probably another 40 years; we all have some bigger things to do rather than sitting safely in our own little districts with smugness.
THE problem with participatory democracy is that people do not participate. Not "political hobbyism."
I concede that the continual stream of requests ( usually in caps) to sign one petition after another got old a long time ago: what might help if done with restraint, and not in competition with a dozen other groups, became an annoyance, not as inspiration.
I think that many potential voters failed to get the idea that voting was important when they were young; whether at school or from their parents. Also that the downfall of unions as an organizing force has a negative effect: people don't identify with groups sharing common economic goals.
I joined in a local campaign at the last election: if more people who could would do that, the person to person effort might make a difference.
I concede that the continual stream of requests ( usually in caps) to sign one petition after another got old a long time ago: what might help if done with restraint, and not in competition with a dozen other groups, became an annoyance, not as inspiration.
I think that many potential voters failed to get the idea that voting was important when they were young; whether at school or from their parents. Also that the downfall of unions as an organizing force has a negative effect: people don't identify with groups sharing common economic goals.
I joined in a local campaign at the last election: if more people who could would do that, the person to person effort might make a difference.
8
Cheryl from Yorktown: Thank you for your efforts and going person to person makes the most difference of all. Continue your hard work and I will do my best because I admit I have been a hobbyist working on line and signing petitions ad nauseam. I think you have inspired me to write that letter to the editor about staying on top of the upcoming healthcare debacle.
More than 50 years ago, Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert Merton developed the concept of "narcotizing dysfunction" to describe the effect of mass media on political attitudes. Wikipedia describes it this way: "Narcotizing dysfunction is a theory that as mass media inundates people on a particular issue they become apathetic to it, substituting knowledge for action.[1] It is suggested that the vast supply of communications Americans receive may elicit only a superficial concern with the problems of society, while importance of real action is neglected, and this superficiality may cover up mass apathy."
Social media has turned the opium of the mass media into heroin, and here we are.
Alternatives are available. For liberals, there's Our Revolution. Some good reading of books like Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," or Piven and Cloward's "Poor People's Movements" can also help.
One problem with the author's analysis is the belief that party elites can do better than the masses. Haven't the elites in the Democratic Party betrayed us? Aren't they the clueless, affluent professionals, mechanically following marketing cookbooks. What I get from the DNC is a fake poll and a request for money. What I see is repeated failure by professional Democrats at every level. How can we trust them?
Social media has turned the opium of the mass media into heroin, and here we are.
Alternatives are available. For liberals, there's Our Revolution. Some good reading of books like Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," or Piven and Cloward's "Poor People's Movements" can also help.
One problem with the author's analysis is the belief that party elites can do better than the masses. Haven't the elites in the Democratic Party betrayed us? Aren't they the clueless, affluent professionals, mechanically following marketing cookbooks. What I get from the DNC is a fake poll and a request for money. What I see is repeated failure by professional Democrats at every level. How can we trust them?
12
Tim Haight from Santa Cruz: Good point! Term limits! like that is barely heard of these days. These so-called "professionals" are no longer public servants. We've just become lazy ensuring our Democracy and so have career politicians not worried about the citizens but finding funding for the next campaign. Nancy Pelosi needs to give up her post (so does McConnell in the Senate) and let some younger faces shine including people of color.
Then if unhappy with the Dems, switch to the GOP and find out what REAL nonsense is like. If you voted for Jill Stein or Bernie, you helped to elect Trump.
1
The only solution to the apathetic voter is self-interested motivation. Why do the Democrats have a hard time devising a "message" that could reignite their party and their voters? How about (1) promising to undo EVERYTHING that Trump, his cabinet, and the Republicans have done and (2) taking some inspiration from previous Democrats like FDR (infrastructure, Social Security) and LBJ (Medicare and Medicaid) toward much-needed Medicare for All, and shedding all that corporate sponsorship -- or step aside and let a citizen-supported Sanders-like candidate eat their lunch.
7
That was the promise of Hillary and Bernie, it was rejected by people who don't vote their selfish interests. They vote for the common good alternatives, constitutional federal government, and other traditional American values.
1
What is wrong with politics is that we do not have publicly funded elections.
Until we do (if ever) the politicians work for the lobbyists and corporations who finance their elections. They no longer "do the work of the people".
Until we do (if ever) the politicians work for the lobbyists and corporations who finance their elections. They no longer "do the work of the people".
15
Self-interest usually conflicts with everything else.
Ask "Do you want to pay more taxes?", all will say "No".
But such questions should never be considered without context, without reflection on consequences and alternatives.
"Should we spend one billion $ on this good thing?", all will say "Yes".
But does this mean we are now unable to spend one billion $ on this much better thing?
Choices have consequences.
Spending 1 trillion $ to fight against poverty would have saved more lives than spending 1 trillion $ to fight against terrorism.
Spending 1 trillion $ for New York's infrastructures would have help New York more than spending 1 trillion $ in Afghanistan.
Ask "Do you want to pay more taxes?", all will say "No".
But such questions should never be considered without context, without reflection on consequences and alternatives.
"Should we spend one billion $ on this good thing?", all will say "Yes".
But does this mean we are now unable to spend one billion $ on this much better thing?
Choices have consequences.
Spending 1 trillion $ to fight against poverty would have saved more lives than spending 1 trillion $ to fight against terrorism.
Spending 1 trillion $ for New York's infrastructures would have help New York more than spending 1 trillion $ in Afghanistan.
9
Far too simple, and at least some would say some spending is not a federal government responsibility no matter what "good" you are assuming.
Voting is the only durable political activism.
7
Whatever.
America is a mediocre place. It explains everything when all our treasure goes to the military - a fascist police state.
America is a mediocre place. It explains everything when all our treasure goes to the military - a fascist police state.
14
Mogwai from CT: Yea, then become part of the solution than remain part of the problem with your cynicism.
..you could move
1
“I’m President and you’re not.”
Yes that’s true.
But you are irresponsible fool and the 65 million Americans who voted for Mrs. Clinton know it.
Yes that’s true.
But you are irresponsible fool and the 65 million Americans who voted for Mrs. Clinton know it.
16
Yes and those millions who elected Trump know that Hillary would be a disaster, and the the president's actions are what counts. We are very happy with the actions and look forward to many more very quickly.
1
There are today, 324 million Americans….
261,000,000 … 261 million Americans DID NOT VOTE FOR Trump.
No matter how you choose to parse that… it is a FACT.
261,000,000 … 261 million Americans DID NOT VOTE FOR Trump.
No matter how you choose to parse that… it is a FACT.
What actions?
1
I find the author to be a hobbyist intellectual. His arguments are shallow and biased.
9
More claptrap from an "experts!
6
The assumption here is that the United States is a democracy where real dialogues take place. The discussion should be about America finally becoming a democracy. The core issue here is The United States is NOT a democracy. It was designed to exclude the masses from directly participating in the political process. The system has failed to evolve into a popular democracy. As intended, the system has succeeded in alienating the masses. Would this explain why people don't believe their voice is heard? So why bother organizing or participating! As we approach July 4th, one has to wonder what Americans gained from their independence. At least the Queen's subjects do not have to worry about their healthcare!
4
Last November our voices WERE heard, very loud and clear. I find it hard
to understand why people don't see that. We voted according to our
choices, and the votes were counted exactly according to the rules we have
had for centuries now.
We won. Trump won, Hillary lost. Some candidates for Governor won, some
lost.
The point is the Democracy DOES work .. the proclamations of the
would-be oligarchs lost.
to understand why people don't see that. We voted according to our
choices, and the votes were counted exactly according to the rules we have
had for centuries now.
We won. Trump won, Hillary lost. Some candidates for Governor won, some
lost.
The point is the Democracy DOES work .. the proclamations of the
would-be oligarchs lost.
Viking 1 from Atlanta: You are speaking about the electoral college system which we need to debunk and destroy. Have you joined any groups on line or in person on working to eliminate this archaic system? We have to focus on one issue at a time, not spread ourselves too thin on too many ignored issues. I admit I am too spread out. I guess I need to focus on that one issue that lights my fire more than all of the rest that do too. Now, Viking 1, we have now had a brief discussion. We just need to listen to one another more even those on our opposing side.
The problem with participatory democracy is the participants.
2
"No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."
H.L. Mencken, Chicago Tribune, 9/29/1926
H.L. Mencken, Chicago Tribune, 9/29/1926
9
Isn't the bigger problem that the professionals are doing democracy wrong?
By the professionals I mean our elected Congress, it is representative democracy that isn't being done well.
The representatives are supposed to use democracy in their decision making, yet that clearly isn't happening. Neither side can engage in intelligent discussion of our challenges, nor can they have any reasoned debate. That is actually their job.
If the Pros are screwing up their job, the rest of us are not in a good position to fix that without some more meaningful discussion of why the job of being a representative is done do badly.
By the professionals I mean our elected Congress, it is representative democracy that isn't being done well.
The representatives are supposed to use democracy in their decision making, yet that clearly isn't happening. Neither side can engage in intelligent discussion of our challenges, nor can they have any reasoned debate. That is actually their job.
If the Pros are screwing up their job, the rest of us are not in a good position to fix that without some more meaningful discussion of why the job of being a representative is done do badly.
5
We, the "participants", elect those representatives by voting without understanding or by not voting at all. The failure is ours.
1
Jim Carroll of Portland, OR: Two things: 1) Career politicians, we need term limits 2) federal funding of our elections
Democracy has been hijacked by the predatory hyper-greedy too big to fail or to jail business corporations with wherewithal to buy leading politicians who are later made to pay their pound of flesh in the form of biased government policies favoring these corporations than the majority of the people .
Laws passed by Obama administration to stem this kind of huge unlimited funding by these leviathan corporations of politicians and political parties got struck down by a hijacked judiciary .
Democracy was turned into Corporatocracy by rendering the votes of people meaningless by the electoral college system whereby certain individual professional politicians who also can be easily bought prompting mark Twain to say " If people's votes had any meaning, they wouldn't have let you vote in the first place " .
Yes, in a way its all the fault of the people who became lotus eaters and got bound by the spell of the false seductiveness of free market economy that let markets free to loot the public.
And now to add insult to injury , they come up with the theory that it was all the fault of the people. Its like telling a victim of rape that its all your fault .
Laws passed by Obama administration to stem this kind of huge unlimited funding by these leviathan corporations of politicians and political parties got struck down by a hijacked judiciary .
Democracy was turned into Corporatocracy by rendering the votes of people meaningless by the electoral college system whereby certain individual professional politicians who also can be easily bought prompting mark Twain to say " If people's votes had any meaning, they wouldn't have let you vote in the first place " .
Yes, in a way its all the fault of the people who became lotus eaters and got bound by the spell of the false seductiveness of free market economy that let markets free to loot the public.
And now to add insult to injury , they come up with the theory that it was all the fault of the people. Its like telling a victim of rape that its all your fault .
7
Regarding: "Democracy has been hijacked by the predatory hyper-greedy too big to fail or to jail business corporations. . ."
Really, zeitgeist? Perhaps you are unaware that the corrupt agencies within the Obama administration had a little something to do with the problem: the IRS, the AG's office, the Department of State, the FBI, etc.
And the corrupt politicians, including, but not limited to, Obama, did little about any of it.
Really, zeitgeist? Perhaps you are unaware that the corrupt agencies within the Obama administration had a little something to do with the problem: the IRS, the AG's office, the Department of State, the FBI, etc.
And the corrupt politicians, including, but not limited to, Obama, did little about any of it.
2
In our country, the right to vote does not have to be earned if one is born a citizen. It is a gift from those who came before --- those who sufferred to defend it and those who were careful not to screw it up. Unfortunately, in a complex world, responsibly exercising our right to vote requires hard work. It requires the study of history so that we understand how we got where we are and what past decisions worked and which did not. It requires critical thinking and the ability to sift the kernel of truth from the vast sea of paid propaganda that inundates us all. And, as importantly, it requires us to look past our own immediate self-interest and consider the best interests of the nation. Recent events have shown us that Ben Franklin's words, "If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately." , are still true. Democracy is ultimately an exercise in compromise. We should have all learned as children that we have to share and that we do not always get our own way.
9
Well said and am momentarily proud of having come from your fine state in my early years.
We are all busy with real life: Working, supporting our families, caring for our children and elders. Any time we take from our busy schedules to try to move the ball politically should be applauded, not denigrated as the author does as "hollow, self-gratifying...hobbyism." Liberals, when oh when will you stop the self-flagellation?
10
Charles of Cross River, NY: I agree with the liberal beating up of one another issue. But the article had some valid points and I know now I am a hobbyist too. Even if I write letters to the editor occasionally, sign petitions daily, and writer letters and make phones to my purported "representatives". I'm not out there hitting the pavement for those town halls and the few local marches we have here in my locality.
Okay. Now I am really insulted
2
The author, like all progressive liberal Marxist democrats, forgot about "principle." This isn't just about mooching the looter politicians for whatever crumbs can be gotten. On this July 4th weekend, folks need to learn what the Declaration of Independence actually meant. For one, in means the "healthcare" can't be someone's right. Principles matter. The tea party was about these moral principles. The Marxist democrats oppose these principles. It's not about right and left, but rather right and wrong. Democratism is the new communism and Americans are disgusted with it.
4
"Healthcare" can certainly be someone's right if a majority of Americans agree that is can.
9
"Marxist", uh. I guess ignorance is bliss. However, it does not solve problems.
The author, like all fascist alt-right republicans, forgot about "principle." This isn't just about mooching the looter politicians for whatever crumbs can be gotten. On this July 4th weekend, folks need to learn what the Declaration of Independence actually meant. For one, it means that subsidizing coal can't be someone's right. Principles matter. The progressive movement was about these moral principles. The fascist republicans oppose these principles. It's not about right and left, but rather right and wrong. Republicanism is the new fascism and Americans are disgusted with it.
See, it's easy to vilify or dehumanize your opponents. But much harder to listen and understand what your fellow countrymen actually think and want.
See, it's easy to vilify or dehumanize your opponents. But much harder to listen and understand what your fellow countrymen actually think and want.
Participatory democracy does not work with ignorant people. This country is full of uneducated people who don't even read or think on their own. This consumerist society has penetrated people's mind through material goods, fear and illiteracy: TV shows are the most popular events. so. what are we going to expect ?
the price: The president we have
so we have lost progress, reason, logic, intelligence, humanity , truth and decency .. and this is only the beginning.
After all, who reads the New York Times??? only smart people, but wake up!!! this is not the vast majority of this country... sad but true..
AND OF COURSE IT IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT..
the price: The president we have
so we have lost progress, reason, logic, intelligence, humanity , truth and decency .. and this is only the beginning.
After all, who reads the New York Times??? only smart people, but wake up!!! this is not the vast majority of this country... sad but true..
AND OF COURSE IT IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT..
5
The uneducated are not so by accident, Eva; it is by design.
If we do not teach the fundamentals in a way that excites the students, that compares the genius of our founding principles to what came before and still exists throughout the world, it is because those neo-progressives who would replace democracy with themselves as philosopher kings would have it so.
If we do not teach the fundamentals in a way that excites the students, that compares the genius of our founding principles to what came before and still exists throughout the world, it is because those neo-progressives who would replace democracy with themselves as philosopher kings would have it so.
3
Ronald Hargreave of NYT: What about the neo-conservatives, are they doing the very same things toward their own aggressive agenda items? Aren't you being hypocritical? The collective over the individual is so worrisome to you (and to me) because of "political correctness" and lots of assuming in neo-liberalism. But what are the neo-conservatives doing? They too are erasing individuality if they are not the "correct" form of individual. "They don't matter" comes to my mind because they don't look nor have the bank accounts like the Koch Brothers and the Trump's so they are "disposable". Just look at their policies.
Marxists knew what to do with 200M undemocratic participants in democracy. And so do the neo-Marxists in our universities.
3
Don't overthink it; just go vote.
5
Brent of Albuquerque: But not by soundbites but by good old fashioned research. Dig your heals in deeper and look at historical context as well. Preserving Democracy is hard work as this article clearly makes.
If you have conflict with the democracy delineated in the U.S. Constitution, go get elected something. Otherwise, you're just hobbying. The President has been elected. Deal with it.
2
leftoright pf New Jersey: Oh! We are dealing with it every nano-second of everyday and it is a nightmare whether awake of sleeping! How do we get rid of this thug is what I am thinking about in my awake hours as he is trying to take our democratic institutions down with his egoism.
This presumes that the system is normal, so we should work harder within the system. But "they" have just finished off what many thought was a given: ultimately fair elections. Perhaps the response won't be normal either.
Who are "they?" Big money is buying our government. Our votes mean next to nothing in the face of money on the scale of Koch, Mercer, and Putin.
But "they" are also the press, which is ultimately owned or limited by money. I read that Bezos could actually pass Gates in wealth. Huge, new money like that of Bezos, is being concentrated at a growing rate, and Bezos controls the Washington Post. (Who controls the Times?) This means that the mainstream media will never exceed the interests of that big money.
Take away the apparent basic voice of voting, and we may depart from normal. Pluralism will finally be shown to be nothing but a joke. The US has not had a revolution, only a change of ownership. Now tbe French ... that was a revolution!
Where are the ongoing investigative stories on "dark money's" march to buy the US government? Isn't that really the only story in town? Or would the Post and the Times rather wait until they are forced to cover the reappearance of the guillotine?
Will the Times even allow such an open discussion of big money?
Who are "they?" Big money is buying our government. Our votes mean next to nothing in the face of money on the scale of Koch, Mercer, and Putin.
But "they" are also the press, which is ultimately owned or limited by money. I read that Bezos could actually pass Gates in wealth. Huge, new money like that of Bezos, is being concentrated at a growing rate, and Bezos controls the Washington Post. (Who controls the Times?) This means that the mainstream media will never exceed the interests of that big money.
Take away the apparent basic voice of voting, and we may depart from normal. Pluralism will finally be shown to be nothing but a joke. The US has not had a revolution, only a change of ownership. Now tbe French ... that was a revolution!
Where are the ongoing investigative stories on "dark money's" march to buy the US government? Isn't that really the only story in town? Or would the Post and the Times rather wait until they are forced to cover the reappearance of the guillotine?
Will the Times even allow such an open discussion of big money?
5
Like this!
Phew, all worn out from all that participating. Time to watch some cable news.
Phew, all worn out from all that participating. Time to watch some cable news.
2
It would be far more useful to write a more prescriptive article about what you think would have more impact.
2
I agree with JB from PA.
Read his comment.
Read his comment.
1
This is an absurdly arrogant column. Does the author actually think that we enraged anti-Trump 'hobbyists' don't vote in local, midterm elections, don't participate in local organizing? What chutzpah! I think this is overcompensation for being an arch-hobbyist himself: teaching political science rather than engaging in politics (and I'm sure an oped in the Times will look great on his CV).
4
The prob limb is with access to media so other voices may be heard. The access laws reflect our 1st Amendment right to public interest mass media speech.
Hoover recognized The Media Is The Message, that power is in control of - who controls mass media. Hoover had his minions infiltrate FCC. The Agency formed to protect our rights has destroyed our rights.
When was the last time you heard or even saw a candidate for federal office who does not subscribe to a political party? When was the 1st time?
http://thegovernmentinexile.live
Hoover recognized The Media Is The Message, that power is in control of - who controls mass media. Hoover had his minions infiltrate FCC. The Agency formed to protect our rights has destroyed our rights.
When was the last time you heard or even saw a candidate for federal office who does not subscribe to a political party? When was the 1st time?
http://thegovernmentinexile.live
1
How ironic that this article ends with an invitation to join the NYT on Facebook and Twitter. I don't participate in either regarding politics or anything else. Perhaps I am too old or just too lazy. I do read the. NYT and the WSJ to gain knowledge and form informed opinions. Unfortunately all I find there lately is partisan vitriol of exactly the same sort that you attribute to "hobbbyists". Perhaps political responsibility should start with professional journalists?
3
Do you know someone who didn't vote? Or who voted for Jill Stein? If you are looking to move our country past the current occupant of the White House, these people should become your pet projects. You should focus your "hobbyism" on them, because there seems to be a large number of them to motivate.
1
Commentary columns fall under "political hobbyism". Perhaps they can be used very differently.
1
The Sage of Baltimore nailed this nearly a century ago:
"No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby." — Henry Louis Mencken, The Chicago Tribune, September 19, 1926.
Indeed, even before that he predicted the current occupant of the Oval Office:
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
— H. L. Mencken, "Bayard vs. Lionheart," The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26,1920 (later reprinted in his book "On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe,” 1956).
"No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby." — Henry Louis Mencken, The Chicago Tribune, September 19, 1926.
Indeed, even before that he predicted the current occupant of the Oval Office:
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
— H. L. Mencken, "Bayard vs. Lionheart," The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26,1920 (later reprinted in his book "On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe,” 1956).
4
POLITICAL Hobbies? It's a no win proposition for the average person of the 99% to try to have some political impact these days. What the US needs is to adopt some of the sensible, effective laws that Australia has on the books. First, require 100% participation in elections. Everyone MUST cast a ballot or pay a fine. The Aussies can vote for major parties, write-ins or most likely can leave ballots blank or just write in "no vote." As a result, participation in elections is very high and government is seen as being connected to the voice of the people instead of the money of the 1%, as it is here in the US. The Aussies also have restrictive gun laws that have lowered gun violence dramatically. In 1996 there was a mass shooting that njured and killed upwards of 60 people. That was enough to convince people that they had to turn in automatic weapons and observe other gun safety laws. What have we got here? We've got the moron Trump ridiculing Chicago for its breathtakingly high number of shootings. It's lower this year; by this date in 2016 there were more than 1,600 shootings. That's probably more people shot in a single day than were shot in Australia, causing a nationwide adoption of gun safety. PS I wonder when the speech of the NRA will be deemed to be incitement to violence? I'm not holding my breath. But I'm just saying...
3
Well thought out. With regard to primaries: Party leaders may be reluctant to vet candidates because doing so may land them in the Gender/Ethnic/Race/Values weeds from which they could never escape. Yet open primaries cost an enormous amount of money and give the Koch network/cable news/Hollywood crowd enormous influence and no decent probability that the winner will act in the interests of a majority of their constituents. This will continue until a significant amount of campaign expenses are funded by a majority of constituents in the contested district and state. Why should I allow someone from Hollywood or a manufacturer of Dixie cups choose my representative? Get out the vote campaigns are great, attending Town Hall meetings is important, but "local" money trumps them both.
It's still one person, one vote. It's important to vote wisely. No amount of money will elect a candidate no one votes for.
1
I find this piece to be patronizing and demeaning. While it's true that Democrats became shamefully complacent under Obama, it doesn't diminish the true engagement that has ocurred since. Marching, calling representatives, attending town halls and volunteering for political campaigns is not political "hobbyism". Quite the contrary. Most activists that I know, including myself have busy lives and families. None of this has been "fun". It has been grueling and time consuming. So, Mr. Hersh, you can sit atop your high horse and make condescending assumptions about half the country, without knowing anything about the individuals and their actual sacrifices and concerns. However, your assumptions, in most cases, are false. I think I can speak for most activists when I say that none of this has been fun. Democrats and progressives are guilty of having been complacent and neglectful, but not being "hobbyists". We are horrified by the man that sits in the White House and trying to minimize the damage that he will do to our country. I take great offense at you suggesting otherwise.
2
This piece rings true in some ways, but it does not flesh out beyond a few boring examples (e.g. "get out the vote") what it means to be genuinely engaged in the democratic process. It is also worth noting that the largest concentrations of democrats live in cities where a sense of local neighborhood and community has been replaced by insulated, work-filled, media-saturated lives. Society's enormous complexity, its massive size, and media's emphasis on national - rather than local - issues leaves citizens feeling alienated, powerless, and at a loss. This piece blames "hobbyism" but does not describe or address the forces that give rise to it.
America is a divided limited power republic. The problem with this screed is ignorance about the nature of the U.S. Constitution and the nurture of American history.
The only 'participatory democracy' that our Founding Fathers intended was election of their representative to the House of Representatives by white Anglo-Saxon Protestant men who owned property. There is no national American Presidential democratic popular vote election.
The only 'participatory democracy' that our Founding Fathers intended was election of their representative to the House of Representatives by white Anglo-Saxon Protestant men who owned property. There is no national American Presidential democratic popular vote election.
3
The article accuses Dems of being political hobbyists. Has the writer spent time on Twitter? Political hobbyism is not exclusive to any party. Furthermore, does the writer know that progressives have a strategy that they quite literally took out of the Tea Party playbook?
1
"Rather than having party leaders vet candidates for competency and sanity, as most democracies do, our parties turned the nomination process into a reality show in which the closest things to vetting are a clap-o-meter and a tracking poll."
Can I pass this along to friends? It better than anything I've read sums up The Gong Show that America has become, to this outsider, at least. I go to sleep at night thinking of all your guns and bombs. No, wait...that's usually my North Korea Gameshow dream. Hard to keep track.
Can I pass this along to friends? It better than anything I've read sums up The Gong Show that America has become, to this outsider, at least. I go to sleep at night thinking of all your guns and bombs. No, wait...that's usually my North Korea Gameshow dream. Hard to keep track.
Yes, democracy is a messy and raucous business. It allows for human nature. Most of the windbags who spout their half-formed opinions are never going to delve deep enough to get a real understanding but that's who humans are. Brain surgeons tell me the regularly get advice from patients and families about performing their job. Why should politicians be different? The new formula is 10 minutes on google = a year of training. Since children have computers to perform "research" they learn early to be their own experts. We could of course have a system like Tzarist Russia but I seem to remember that political opinion there could only be expressed through bombs. No. I prefer our own hot air release democracy. We should live with the democracy Churchill thought awful because we, as he said, would find every other system worse.
People who choose not to vote, thinking that exempts them from the consequences, have got it wrong. Choosing not to vote is a choice, and instead of claiming no responsibility for the outcome, their decision to be apathetic is worse. It harms our democracy, fragile as it is, though many think it's indestructible, unsinkable, like the Titanic.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
3
This is based on 'then-think', not 'now-think'. Being 'sapiens' we are mightily influenced by changes like the invention of paper, writing and the printing press, for examples. Now we are in a new world - electronic paper if you will. None of the old verities - no matter how we cling to them - are true. Analysis - banalysis. We are being carried along on a torrent and no one knows where we will end up.
1
While I understand your point, I disagree with the idea of people as political junkies who instead of participating at some grassroots level, follows the media and tries to make sense of an administration who is dismantiling everything from climate change to healthcare, education, and most definitely the truth. We have to keep abreast lest the steamroller gets too close!
1
Political hobbyism also encompasses reading and commenting on articles like this one - ironic!
If this were your foreword to your doctoral thesis, I would read no further and just give you a "D". On the other hand, were I to view this writing as a nuanced approach to the myriad of excuses why Hillary Clinton lost and Donald Trump won, then I might be able to squeak on a "C". Apparently what you fail to understand Mr. Hersh is that people are fed up with professional politicians telling them what they should think, how they should vote and how they should conduct their lives. We the People are fed up with big brother!
1
I'm reasonably sure I know why Hillary lost --- a combination of frustration with the stacked economic deck and wishful thinking that an immature, self-centered real estate promoter, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, could somehow fix our nation's problems.
Vote people, vote. Demonstrating and ranting on Facebook and Twitter, but we had the lowest voting participation ever in this last election. If you care about health care, education, & jobs inform yourself about each candidate and vote.
1
"Rather than having party leaders vet candidates for competency and sanity, as most democracies do, our parties turned the nomination process into a reality show in which the closest things to vetting are a clap-o-meter and a tracking poll."
Across the West, a new trend is emerging. When voters "incorrectly" in an election or referendum, the anti-populists come out deploring "too much democracy". Voters are low-information, misinformed, ignorant of their own interests, or slothfully self-indulgent in the entertainment rush of fandom. Next comes the solution: "vetting" candidates or referendum decisions to make sure that Mr. or Ms. Wrong does not get elected; that the wrong policy does not get the thumbs up.
In fact, it is the Western elites who have collapsed into idle confusion. They lack vision; they lack even the ability to handle day-to-day problems. Their economies are bankrupt and their foreign policy reckless. What millions of ordinary voters are signalling to them is that they have had enough of them. Please, just go.
Across the West, a new trend is emerging. When voters "incorrectly" in an election or referendum, the anti-populists come out deploring "too much democracy". Voters are low-information, misinformed, ignorant of their own interests, or slothfully self-indulgent in the entertainment rush of fandom. Next comes the solution: "vetting" candidates or referendum decisions to make sure that Mr. or Ms. Wrong does not get elected; that the wrong policy does not get the thumbs up.
In fact, it is the Western elites who have collapsed into idle confusion. They lack vision; they lack even the ability to handle day-to-day problems. Their economies are bankrupt and their foreign policy reckless. What millions of ordinary voters are signalling to them is that they have had enough of them. Please, just go.
Mr. Hersh roundly criticizes the way that people, Democrats especially, it would seem, engage in politics these day,s but offers little in the way of a remedy or an improvement. Worse, he seems to suggest that staying out of the fray would be better than this "hobbyism" he describe. I would disagree entirely. Getting even modestly engaged in politics is, to me, an improvement over apathy. We use the tools at our disposal - even if they are imperfect -and we try to be efficient with the way we divide our time among the priorities in our lives, including work, family, recreation and, yes, politics.
1
Thank you for your thoughts Professor Hersch. You raise some interesting points. I'm sure you would agree that the issues you raise are much too complex to package neatly in a box labeled "Political Hobbyism." I find it difficult to understand how our elected officials, men and women like us, cannot see how their behavior is effecting the country which includes them and their families. Why is it so hard for them to compromise, to understand that no one anywhere gets everything they want and the country needs to be governed. Regardless of how they got there, at the end of the day they are all human beings who must live in this world.
I must be a political dilettante. When not a practitioner, what’s left but to be one. When working, working, and working again, then trying to find some time for my family, and me; politics must become a backseat hobby full of cheap participation. Too, the ideologies to choose from are narrow minded and lacking. I mean, I get better choice in the cereal aisle, or the mobile phone store. Choosing an ideology seems more like making a turn at a stop sign, it’s not the direction that matters but the point of view along the way, which, by current standards means rubbish and public squalor strewn all along the way. But maybe that’s because I am a hobbyist, and yet—not really an enthusiast. After all, shouldn’t one be enthusiastic about their politics, as, I said before; they are about their cereal and smart phones? After all, civic duty and self-interest are passé in a culture that elects candidates like H.C. and D.T. and then expects some kind of legitimate outcome from the marriage. It’s not going to happen. So, little choice, bad choice, or no choice at all. This is what makes one a political dilettante and keeps one there, cheap contribution and all.
15
Dead on, professor. And guilty as charged.
Professor Hersh has loaded up on the Democrats, and is rocking lickety-split on his hobbyist horse. Meanwhile the Republicans represent how winners run the country. A very savvy professor--NOT.
2
The problem is that we don't have a democracy, participatory or otherwise. We vote but have no real input on policy. That is decided by the small number of wealthy donors and lobbyists in the state and federal government. It has been that way for many years int his country, going all the way back to the founding fathers, many of whom saw no reason to give voting power to the vast majority of the population (Ie. women, white men without property or money, free blacks and certainly not slaves nor Native Americans). As far as the Masters of the Universe are concerned, we, the people, are here to serve and obey. One way to keep the increasingly dis-advantaged under control is the old tried and true method of "divide and conquer". Make us hate each other and that will keep us occupied. So, enough of the blather about political hobbyism. If people really want change they are going to have to fight for it with money and action.
3
As long as these hobbyists seal the deal and vote, I am in absolute favor of the hobby. So long as they refrain from spreading fake news, of course.
1
If anyone is a political hobbyist, it's Trump.
Being President is something he does in his spare time.
He enjoys provocation and belittling and being President gives him the World as an audience. He has turned his hobbies of Prevailing, Exploiting and Sadism into a paying gig. I imagine that he was the type of child who built model airplanes just so he could burn them. On second thought, I doubt he would even take the time to build them - that takes patience and skill. His passion appears to be destroying other's accomplishments. He and his administration represents a clear and present danger to democracy.
Being President is something he does in his spare time.
He enjoys provocation and belittling and being President gives him the World as an audience. He has turned his hobbies of Prevailing, Exploiting and Sadism into a paying gig. I imagine that he was the type of child who built model airplanes just so he could burn them. On second thought, I doubt he would even take the time to build them - that takes patience and skill. His passion appears to be destroying other's accomplishments. He and his administration represents a clear and present danger to democracy.
1
Let me get this straight. People engaging with their elected representatives (emails, phone calls, town hall meetings, Resistbot, marches, protests) are "political hobbyists"? Gee, I thought they were concerned citizens engaged in democracy expressing their colossal alarm about the evisceration of our civil, human and reproductive rights, the gutting of our financial, environmental and consumer regulations, a president who's a dummy, a bully and a proud liar, and a Republican party happy to sell out the peasants to the highest bidding oligarchs.
2
The author's bent is clear; how dare the common man express his opinion when it is not the same as the obviously superior intellectual elite's. Further along this line, I note that the only examples of activism he does not qualify as hobbyist are for causes beloved by the progressives.
1
Amen, Mikecody of Niagara Falls. After seeing a publicity byte on TV from Charles Peters regarding his recent book "We Do Our Part", I requested a copy from my local library. He'd sounded like he might have some good ideas on reviving the Democratic Party. Long story short, all Peters did was catalog the double-dealing that has gone on in government since FDR, blame all the usual suspects for Clinton's defeat, and fail to address the party's current dilemma. In one brief sentence toward the end of the book, he writes something like "Unemployed auto workers and coal miners might have wondered why Obama fussed over toilets for transexuals, while showing little concern over their situation." Duh. It ain't rocket science. Could it be Middle America is more worried about unemployment than the toilet habits of 1/100th of one percent of the population? Could be. Could be. Yet Hersh seems to suggest we might be better off letting "professionals" like Peters run things. God help us.
2
"The hobbyist in the Oval Office ... was possible because ... binding primary elections determine presidential nominations. Rather than having party leaders vet candidates for competency and sanity, as most democracies do."
"Hobbyism" isn't the problem at all. That is "democracy" itself. You prefer "oligarchy".
And that re-iterates the problem: the oligarchs are themselves hobbyists--amateurs--professionals at something else--as is Trump. US "politicians" are mostly amateurs--i.e. hobbyists.
Obama--as constitutional lawyer/professor and community organizer--came closer to political professional. Thus he seemed to transcend "politics"--especially by contrast. But "politics" here degenerates into "marketing"--ideas and personas. Truth is irrelevant in marketing; only persuasion matters.
"Professional" implies special knowledge and skill--learned--the natural basis of authority-deference--those with less defer to those with more. Party leaders need not be more knowledgeable about public policy. They may be mere marketers.
Obama tried "knowledge based politics"--aimed at the public good. He was thwarted by plutocratic hit men--feudal knights of the 1%--god's will revealed only to them.
The root problem is ideological dogmatism--religious or political. "Democracy" in a wide sense means open discussion and critical thought--separation of powers, hierarchies of due process. It fails if brand loyalty kicks in.
Trump thinks he's god--critics are blasphemous sinners.
"Hobbyism" isn't the problem at all. That is "democracy" itself. You prefer "oligarchy".
And that re-iterates the problem: the oligarchs are themselves hobbyists--amateurs--professionals at something else--as is Trump. US "politicians" are mostly amateurs--i.e. hobbyists.
Obama--as constitutional lawyer/professor and community organizer--came closer to political professional. Thus he seemed to transcend "politics"--especially by contrast. But "politics" here degenerates into "marketing"--ideas and personas. Truth is irrelevant in marketing; only persuasion matters.
"Professional" implies special knowledge and skill--learned--the natural basis of authority-deference--those with less defer to those with more. Party leaders need not be more knowledgeable about public policy. They may be mere marketers.
Obama tried "knowledge based politics"--aimed at the public good. He was thwarted by plutocratic hit men--feudal knights of the 1%--god's will revealed only to them.
The root problem is ideological dogmatism--religious or political. "Democracy" in a wide sense means open discussion and critical thought--separation of powers, hierarchies of due process. It fails if brand loyalty kicks in.
Trump thinks he's god--critics are blasphemous sinners.
1
Spare me the blame-the victims-diatribe. When the GOP claimed Christianity for the Republican Party over two decades ago, our secular system began to tip and is now inches away from a complete inversion. The Democrats have been out-godded.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders' response to questions about the effect on children of disgusting language as directed toward Mika Brzezinski by presidential role model Trump, replied she looks to only "one perfect role model: God," as if that excuses abusive and cruel human behaviors.
Hitting below the belt used to be considered low and callous. Now it is acceptable, as is pretty much anything that supposedly serves a higher purpose. God is frequently used to justify brutish, inhumane behavior. Just ask ISIS or the IRA. I find however, that longterm divine rewards for such brutishness are seldom forthcoming. In the end, the joke is on the abusers, though don't expect to observe that comeuppance in real time. Life doesn't work that way.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders' response to questions about the effect on children of disgusting language as directed toward Mika Brzezinski by presidential role model Trump, replied she looks to only "one perfect role model: God," as if that excuses abusive and cruel human behaviors.
Hitting below the belt used to be considered low and callous. Now it is acceptable, as is pretty much anything that supposedly serves a higher purpose. God is frequently used to justify brutish, inhumane behavior. Just ask ISIS or the IRA. I find however, that longterm divine rewards for such brutishness are seldom forthcoming. In the end, the joke is on the abusers, though don't expect to observe that comeuppance in real time. Life doesn't work that way.
3
“Donald Trump’s election was possible because both political parties mistakenly decided several decades ago to have binding primary elections determine presidential nominations.”
INCORRECT: Donald Trump’s election was possible because the Democratic Party hacked the DNC primaries to favour Hillary Clinton. Sanders may very well have beaten Donald Trump.
INCORRECT: Donald Trump’s election was possible because the Democratic Party hacked the DNC primaries to favour Hillary Clinton. Sanders may very well have beaten Donald Trump.
1
See the many quotes to the effect that those who seek power, presumably the professionals, are the least worthy of it. It's "We the people..." not we the professionals...
1
In his cumbersome and convoluted efforts to offer "hobbyism" as a "new" interpretation, Prof. Hersh may wish to reverse the true cause and effect, but he nevertheless can't avoid referencing the real 'disease' infecting participatory democracy: the obsessive, relentless, insatiable pursuit by the 1% to continually enlarge their holdings and control at the expense of the vast majority of working citizens. The impact of this, as intended, is both "felt" and very real: it has made our government less representative, more distorted, more corrupt and money-driven, and less effective (which reinforces the problem). This is a deliberate design, and part of the design is to undermine participatory democracy. Our government did not become less representative and democratic because fewer people participated; fewer people participate because there are increasingly fewer politicians who represent the people and work for the best interests of our nation and who are, ultimately, not beholden to the 1%. To pretend otherwise, as Prof. Hersh does, is not only sticking one's head in the sand, but also enabling the spread of the disease.
3
> the obsessive, relentless, insatiable pursuit by the 1% to continually enlarge their holdings and control at the expense of the vast majority of working citizens.
First they came for the 1% but I said nothing.
Then they came for the 99% but it was too late.
First they came for the 1% but I said nothing.
Then they came for the 99% but it was too late.
1
Every single day I get between 60 and 100 emails from different Democrat political organizations. Sometimes the emails despair, sometimes they cheer, about different issues and events. But, always always, they are asking for money, and my name on petitions. Although I often agree with their pleas, I almost never respond.
Once, long ago, in a more innocent hopeful time, 2008, I was enthusiastic and contributed to Moveon.org. Now there is such a proliferation of orgs, pleading for me me me to help, that I have become numbed.
We, the disenfranchised through electoral college and gerrymandering need a consolidation of vigorous forward thinking progressives to hack our way out of this ugly far right morass. How can we do this?With fresh and charismatic new leaders.
An American Macron or Trudeau. There must be someone out there willing to begin!
Once, long ago, in a more innocent hopeful time, 2008, I was enthusiastic and contributed to Moveon.org. Now there is such a proliferation of orgs, pleading for me me me to help, that I have become numbed.
We, the disenfranchised through electoral college and gerrymandering need a consolidation of vigorous forward thinking progressives to hack our way out of this ugly far right morass. How can we do this?With fresh and charismatic new leaders.
An American Macron or Trudeau. There must be someone out there willing to begin!
4
Yes, the problem is with the participants, but it's not quite true in the way you explain. We the people are similarly hobbyists in EVERY aspect of our lives. I watch a young work colleague date: It's a series of swipes on his cell phone, each taking perhaps a second, two at most. He would do more research if he were buying a pencil. I type on a comments board, to be read by, perhaps, half a dozen similarly procrastinating coffee drinkers. Such is the stuff of modern life and many of us do even less, are even less engaged.
1
The word Democrats recurs throughout this piece. Is this meant to suggest that there are no Republican political "hobbyists" whose hobby has shaped current events? Is the answer is yes, then I suggest that the author take a look at those who faithfully quote Fox News personalities. Perhaps he might learn a few things about Republican "engagement" in the political process.
6
Perhaps the democratic "hobbyists" are actually committed members of society seeking a method to deal with the realization that the many victories they thought won are suddenly being dismantled.
The lost security of a system that no longer makes progressive sense is causing the fractionation of a voting bloc that just took too much for granted about the decency and values of their fellow citizens.
The lost security of a system that no longer makes progressive sense is causing the fractionation of a voting bloc that just took too much for granted about the decency and values of their fellow citizens.
7
On one hand Professor Hersh complains about "super PACs" but then says Citizens United is not the problem. Citizens United enabled super PACs and the idea that there should not be caps on money because it was "free speech". The idea that all the money should just flow to the parties and that we should get rid of primaries is a recipe for corruption on a massive scale. Corporations would run the show. Thanks but no thanks. Clinton won the vote, just not the election. That is the real problem in this country that needs to be addressed.
9
This trend may have started some time ago (the author points to the time the military draft ended), but Citizens United ha had a huge impact. People become hobbyists because they have no serious input into policy. Input is bought and paid for by donors with the deepest pockets.
5
Here's what Facebook posting and sharing is REALLY doing: It is supplying data back to Facebook, who will then use it for more targeted specified advertising and marketing. Here's what your online petition is REALLY doing: Supplying your email address to collections lists who will then use them for... whatever.
And yet, I have signed up for my Senators and Congressional email newsletters, and even from them I (often) receive those online petitions. In this sense I'm not sure it's all coming from the people we like to call hobbyists... I mean.. our Senators are doing it too. My sense is they want to collect information about their voter base so they may better shape their next campaign. These online petitions don't make it to the House or Senate Floor even for a debate.
But if you're not on Facebook (which I'm not) you'll be totally and blissfully unaware of all this impeachment talk. Thus demonstrating, once again, that it's total fantasy.
And yet, I have signed up for my Senators and Congressional email newsletters, and even from them I (often) receive those online petitions. In this sense I'm not sure it's all coming from the people we like to call hobbyists... I mean.. our Senators are doing it too. My sense is they want to collect information about their voter base so they may better shape their next campaign. These online petitions don't make it to the House or Senate Floor even for a debate.
But if you're not on Facebook (which I'm not) you'll be totally and blissfully unaware of all this impeachment talk. Thus demonstrating, once again, that it's total fantasy.
3
"The Problem With Participatory Democracy Is the Participants"
No it's not. It's the non-participants. They stay home either through apathy or through disgust. And there's a huge industry designed to sow disgust.
Folks, if you don't vote, you are giving up your power to those who do.
No it's not. It's the non-participants. They stay home either through apathy or through disgust. And there's a huge industry designed to sow disgust.
Folks, if you don't vote, you are giving up your power to those who do.
9
Sounds like Hersh is saying: shut up, don’t pay attention, nothing to see here. Unfortunately, there are very few ways for ordinary people to get their views out to those who hold power. The Trump Administration is clearly only listening to special interests, billionaires and CEOs, trotting out the occasional crime victim or coal miner for show. Republican Congressmembers aren’t even meeting with their constituents, certainly not listening to them on issues as vital as health care, gun violence prevention, immigration reform, tax policy, education, climate action. If we don’t sound off using the same mechanisms – social media – that others have claimed in contrast to Hersh that they are the dominant mechanism for “democracy,” then it will sound like the rightwingers and those who would reverse the progress made over the past century are the “majority.” Are we to wait every two or four years to have a say, when increasingly, what happens at the ballot box bears little reflection of what the majority of Americans advocate in an era of gerrymandering, Citizens United and voter suppression? Once again, Clinton received 3 million more votes than Trump, yet the interests of the majority are being trampled.
10
Interesting and thought provoking piece! Harsh is not say that participating though any means is 'bad' and something that should not be undertaken. The way I read this is that Hersh is suggesting to supplement these efforts with more 'boots on the ground' doing more of the slow methodical local face-to-face work that takes time but that builds powerful coalitions.
1
Even when we try to participate, most of our participation is futile...slightly less effective than writing to Santa Claus.
What we need is for our representatives to bring the process back home. On major issues such as healthcare, our congressional delegations, and I mean panels of senators and representatives of both parties, together should be holding open hearings around their states "back home".
What we need is for our representatives to bring the process back home. On major issues such as healthcare, our congressional delegations, and I mean panels of senators and representatives of both parties, together should be holding open hearings around their states "back home".
4
"Liberals" care about people. Conservatives care about the rich. When are conservatives going to care about the people in need of help when it comes to government. Just look at who was to be helped in the conservative party in charge at the moment, that's right, the rich. Look at the response from those governed!
4
I believe that conservatives on average care about their own people, in strong preference to others. Liberals, like anyone, care about their own but extend more care to others than do conservatives.
As these positions harden, without the modulation of joint engagement, there appears to be no common ground for sensible policy to properly balance these points of view. Both sides end up demonizing the other.
As these positions harden, without the modulation of joint engagement, there appears to be no common ground for sensible policy to properly balance these points of view. Both sides end up demonizing the other.
I couldn't agree with you more, what ever happened to compromise?
Ms. Hersh is entitled to her opinion but for the life of me I can't figure out what she is talking about, or what her argument is based upon -- except perhaps the superficial thinking so prevalent in our society today. If that's her point, I agree. It takes hard work over time, and a lot of critical thinking, to be well-informed. Emotions must be set aside to some extent. Self-interest, ditto. Who has time and energy for all this? People are overwhelmed with daily living -- jobs, family, home maintenance, etc. We rely on elected leaders and career bureaucrats to handle civic matters on our behalf. It's their job to be experts on issues of public importance. Must we do this as well? How?
8
Well put. What most of us participate in are activities that don't forward our stated goals rather than those that make a difference.
2
Professor Hersh is to be commended for offering a simple, unicausal explanation of our political dysfunction. Unicausal explanations have many advantages: they obviate the cognitive effort involved in understanding other potential causes and hold out hope that by changing the single cause, the problem will be solved. In this particular case, Hersh’s explanation avoids the need for tedious exploration of the effects on our political system of gerrymandering and the dark money unleased by Citizens United. Instead, we can hope that by better policing of other people’s cable news viewing habits, our democracy will be restored. Bravo, Professor Hersh!
3
Hap In Oregon says, "The US is NOT a democracy. It is a federal republic."
Yes, it was founded as a federal republic and I agree with those who commented that the founding fathers wrote the Constitution to keep people like themselves - white men with land and money - in power.
However, OUR America is 240 years old and has grown up since then. WE have fought for, demanded and gained social and economic justice for ALL Americans. The "dead document" men who have gained control want to take us back to the days when America was being formed. They want a few white, rich men to run America and the world for their personal power.
It is up to US to say NO. That is not the kind of America and world that WE want. WE want a socially and economically just - DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED - republic.
OUR Constitution is not dead. It's a living, breathing reflection of WE THE PEOPLE. Let's keep it that way.
Yes, it was founded as a federal republic and I agree with those who commented that the founding fathers wrote the Constitution to keep people like themselves - white men with land and money - in power.
However, OUR America is 240 years old and has grown up since then. WE have fought for, demanded and gained social and economic justice for ALL Americans. The "dead document" men who have gained control want to take us back to the days when America was being formed. They want a few white, rich men to run America and the world for their personal power.
It is up to US to say NO. That is not the kind of America and world that WE want. WE want a socially and economically just - DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED - republic.
OUR Constitution is not dead. It's a living, breathing reflection of WE THE PEOPLE. Let's keep it that way.
5
Academic corruption: when political scientists idealize democrazy as if Plato and Aristotle had not identified the necessary sequence from democracy thru anarchy to tyranny. And as if the US Constitution had not been created as an application of Aristotle's discovery of scientific method and as a method of protecting individual rights from both aristocracy and democracy (see: Socrates). Yo, Prof! The 18th century Enlightenment is the ONLY basically individualist culture in history. It was deliberately destroyed by religionists and modernists. Today, in our corrupt schools, its virtually unknown.
11
"In fact, it is not because of gerrymandering, Citizens United, cable news or any of the other common scapegoats that our system is broken, but because of us: ordinary people who are doing politics the wrong way."
This is a nice theory, but gerrymandering is at the root of nearly all our political dysfunction. We are a center-left country with a relentlessly right wing national legislature. People will never be satisfied with our politics so long as it not only doesn't reflect us, but works in through-the-looking glass opposition to our values and interests.
This is a nice theory, but gerrymandering is at the root of nearly all our political dysfunction. We are a center-left country with a relentlessly right wing national legislature. People will never be satisfied with our politics so long as it not only doesn't reflect us, but works in through-the-looking glass opposition to our values and interests.
14
Dennis states, "We are a center-left country with a relentlessly right wing national legislature."
How do you explain state government, which is overwhelmingly conservative?
And how do you explain the move by voters from liberal congress to conservative congress?
How do you explain state government, which is overwhelmingly conservative?
And how do you explain the move by voters from liberal congress to conservative congress?
2
People have voted for Republicans for a variety of reasons, but I would say the Party has successfully played on people's fears of change, the other, and social issues. It's also true, in my state anyway, that if you tell people they can have all the services they expect but won't have to pay any taxes, you will get their vote quite frequently, if not every time. Republicans have bamboozled lots of people this way, and it looks like they continue to do so, given Azalea Lover's comment.
A wide variety of surveys suggest that, by the standards of Western Europe, the US is a center-right country -- not a center-left country. By the same standards, the Republican Party is a right-to-far-right party; the Democratic Party is a center-left party.
But it is not the orientation of individuals that is determining the composition of government; it is the rate at which they turn out to vote. A higher fraction of Republicans than Democrats vote, and an even higher fraction of very conservative Republicans vote ... especially in primaries.
But it is not the orientation of individuals that is determining the composition of government; it is the rate at which they turn out to vote. A higher fraction of Republicans than Democrats vote, and an even higher fraction of very conservative Republicans vote ... especially in primaries.
1
This article is beside the point. I can't understand why pundits continue to argue about trivia like this. Read Gilens and Page. The folks with money set U.S. policy. Public opinion is little more than background static when it comes to policy issues that have a direct affect on economics.
We are no longer a democracy. We are an oligarchy. So why not let us folks in the masses at least enjoy politics from the sidelines as a form of entertainment? It's all we have left.
We are no longer a democracy. We are an oligarchy. So why not let us folks in the masses at least enjoy politics from the sidelines as a form of entertainment? It's all we have left.
13
First, the low Democratic turnout and Congressional losses suffered by the Democrats in 2010 and 2014 were not because Democratic voters were busy being political hobbyists on the Internet, it's because we were NOT doing that. We were ignoring politics, somehow believing that the country was safe with a Democrat in the White House. Much of the plethora of political activism we now see (which admittedly ranges from the useful to the silly) is directly in response to the 2016 election results.
Second, strategies like bots are not embraced because they are easy or fun or provide instant gratification, but because they have already been mobilized by the Democrats' political opponents (including some whom we would all do well to recognize as enemies of the fundamentals of our democracy.) And arguing with friends of friends (or perfect strangers) on Facebook may be the modern version of community engagement, as so many Democrats, in particular, live among other like-minded people in big urban areas and may not have many conservative neighbors or co-workers to mingle with and influence the old-fashioned way.
I do like the authors' points about changes in campaign and election laws being favorable to wealthy political hobbyists who can use their money to muck around freely. But I think he misses the boat when he sees everyday activism as a smaller scale version of the same thing.
Anyway, I guess we'll find out when the 2018 elections roll around!
Second, strategies like bots are not embraced because they are easy or fun or provide instant gratification, but because they have already been mobilized by the Democrats' political opponents (including some whom we would all do well to recognize as enemies of the fundamentals of our democracy.) And arguing with friends of friends (or perfect strangers) on Facebook may be the modern version of community engagement, as so many Democrats, in particular, live among other like-minded people in big urban areas and may not have many conservative neighbors or co-workers to mingle with and influence the old-fashioned way.
I do like the authors' points about changes in campaign and election laws being favorable to wealthy political hobbyists who can use their money to muck around freely. But I think he misses the boat when he sees everyday activism as a smaller scale version of the same thing.
Anyway, I guess we'll find out when the 2018 elections roll around!
7
I think it is clear that the two party system is over - the future is a range of independent politicians who use social media creatively to engage citizens - the two most successful ones recently were trump and Bernie Sanders - now to get more independents to run for local and state office
2
Trump and Sanders both ran within the two-party structure.
"Hobbyist" politics is better than sticking one's head in the sand because at least it shows general interest. Unfortunately, too many low-information people respond to the hate/anger/fear/LIES tweets of The Con Don. And the media is obsessed with reporting every single one.
Americans believed "professional" politicians and academics like Mr. Hersh were watching over and taking care of OUR democracy. WE have been proven wrong. Now WE are playing catch-up to try to figure out how to reverse the damage being done.
It is up to US - through whatever means necessary - to look into our hearts and minds, decide what kind of America WE want to live in and fight like hell to create it. The vast majority of Americans do not want the America The Con Don and his Robber Baron friends - in business and academics - are trying to create.
Americans believed "professional" politicians and academics like Mr. Hersh were watching over and taking care of OUR democracy. WE have been proven wrong. Now WE are playing catch-up to try to figure out how to reverse the damage being done.
It is up to US - through whatever means necessary - to look into our hearts and minds, decide what kind of America WE want to live in and fight like hell to create it. The vast majority of Americans do not want the America The Con Don and his Robber Baron friends - in business and academics - are trying to create.
6
I suppose your "vast majority" statement stems from your in-depth polls of people across the country. You should share you data with NYT editors.
2
Mr.Hersh's real problem with participatory democracy is that it's actually occurring.
Neoliberalism and neoconservatism are both dying.
The corporate elites of both parties have always controlled the dialogue, the media, and the political & economic system. Because of the internet and other forms of social media, the elites are losing control of the narrative.
Combine this rising level of grassroots activism with the massive wealth inequality of late stage capitalism, which fuels rage, despair and desperation among the vast majority of Americans, and you can see elites have recognized a threat to their political and economic hegemony.
Articles like Mr. Hersh's represent the corporate elite point of view as it attempts to justify "rule from above" in the "best interest of the people."
That's oligarchy, not democracy.
Neoliberalism and neoconservatism are both dying.
The corporate elites of both parties have always controlled the dialogue, the media, and the political & economic system. Because of the internet and other forms of social media, the elites are losing control of the narrative.
Combine this rising level of grassroots activism with the massive wealth inequality of late stage capitalism, which fuels rage, despair and desperation among the vast majority of Americans, and you can see elites have recognized a threat to their political and economic hegemony.
Articles like Mr. Hersh's represent the corporate elite point of view as it attempts to justify "rule from above" in the "best interest of the people."
That's oligarchy, not democracy.
5
And yet, when surveyed, Americans are in favor of things like programs to support the poor, e.g. Medicaid, sensible gun registration policies and laws, and the separation of church and state, and myriad other things. I do not think we are as divided and belligerent as the portrait is painted now.
I am less afraid of direct democracy that what we have now, where all of our politicians are bought and paid for by the rich. I would put up "the people's" ideas on health care well above the GOP's "take it away form the less wealthy to provide tax cuts for the wealthy" approach.
I am less afraid of direct democracy that what we have now, where all of our politicians are bought and paid for by the rich. I would put up "the people's" ideas on health care well above the GOP's "take it away form the less wealthy to provide tax cuts for the wealthy" approach.
6
After his mass murders, Stalin continued to blame anti-revolutionaries for corrupting his egalitarian ideal.
Mr. Hersch is stating the obvious, but it obviously needs to be stated. It is of little or no use, maybe even counterproductive, to simply "tick", "tweet", "post on your timeline". If our democracy is to be saved it will require sustained hard work. Does anyone really think that governing is easy?
8
Excellent, Dr. Sinclair!
2
Excuse me, but where is the evidence for anything in this column? Everything portrayed here as "hobbyist" are activities conducted by the extreme radical right -- first.
The difference is that those minority "hobbyists" got a huge lift from a thirty year PLAN of the super well endowed right wing think tanks through unmatchable funds from the likes of the Koch brothers, and given the final push by the usual half hearted turnout of voters in 2010. Once that plan went into effect everything follows. Everything, absolutely everything since then has been the consequence including BTW the election of the "anyone but Hillary" candidate.
Our democracy is teetering on the brink of plutocracy and oligarchy and perhaps even totalitarianism funded by corporate America that has its eye only on the bottom line. Keep in mind that Russia and Turkey also conduct "elections." So does China and Iran. All of these places have been captured by a single party entity. Our government is presently in the hands of the Republican Party -- utterly and completely. Only their own internal fights and the incompetence of the President prevent them from throwing out the last 150 years of social progress. THAT is not the fault of "hobbyist" political citizens. It is the consequence of laziness on the part of many voters, lack of foresight and strategic planning backed by real money on the part of Democrats, and the effect of global economics on advanced nations. Political hobbyists my patooty.
The difference is that those minority "hobbyists" got a huge lift from a thirty year PLAN of the super well endowed right wing think tanks through unmatchable funds from the likes of the Koch brothers, and given the final push by the usual half hearted turnout of voters in 2010. Once that plan went into effect everything follows. Everything, absolutely everything since then has been the consequence including BTW the election of the "anyone but Hillary" candidate.
Our democracy is teetering on the brink of plutocracy and oligarchy and perhaps even totalitarianism funded by corporate America that has its eye only on the bottom line. Keep in mind that Russia and Turkey also conduct "elections." So does China and Iran. All of these places have been captured by a single party entity. Our government is presently in the hands of the Republican Party -- utterly and completely. Only their own internal fights and the incompetence of the President prevent them from throwing out the last 150 years of social progress. THAT is not the fault of "hobbyist" political citizens. It is the consequence of laziness on the part of many voters, lack of foresight and strategic planning backed by real money on the part of Democrats, and the effect of global economics on advanced nations. Political hobbyists my patooty.
16
Rarely does a somewhat negative comment so effectively illustrate what the columnist is saying.
Here you have it all: promotion of conspiracy theories, demonization of those with opposing perspectives and a tendency to ignore inconvenient facts (like the fact that despite all the hand wringing over Citizens United, the candidate who won spent the least) in order to promote the plot one finds most satisfying.
As long as one believe that events are the inevitable result of the the machinations of unseen yet omnipotent conspirators intent on destroying our way of life and taking away our freedom, one is just not going to be very effective-I mean, where would you even start.
Here you have it all: promotion of conspiracy theories, demonization of those with opposing perspectives and a tendency to ignore inconvenient facts (like the fact that despite all the hand wringing over Citizens United, the candidate who won spent the least) in order to promote the plot one finds most satisfying.
As long as one believe that events are the inevitable result of the the machinations of unseen yet omnipotent conspirators intent on destroying our way of life and taking away our freedom, one is just not going to be very effective-I mean, where would you even start.
3
Belief in conspiracy theories is not crazy if there is actual proof that a conspiracy exists.
Let's not forget the media that not only cover elections like horse races, but promote certain narratives to keep it close and "exciting". And then there are the pundits, especially on Sunday morning, who spend all their time analyzing the politics of the day but don't seriously talk about policy unless they can boil it down to a catch phrase. The 2016 popular vote went to the candidate who was "boring" (Google "Hillary Clinton campaign boring" and you get more than a half million results) and focused on policy and had a history of doing the hard work. She was prepared and articulate during the debates. But, the Republican, insult-spewing, game show host won instead. Yeah, go ahead and blame the Democrats for being hobbyists and admonish us that we're not doing the "boring" stuff.
8
I like boring politicians. What I don't like are politicians who have rarely had a job in the private sector but who have become wealthy - not just rich, wealthy - while in politics. As Harry Truman said, "No man can become rich in politics unless he's a crook. It can't be done". Works for women as well.
1
It is not "participatory Democracy" that is a problem, it obsessive internet use, causing massive insecurity on the part of the "participants"! We've lost a large amount of original thought to the need to reach an internet consensus!
2
The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
Has the author actually spoken to Trump supporters? There is no dialogue to be had there, no amount of reasoned debate, no give. Decades worth of carefully stoked hatred and disdain have fashioned a cadre of right wing voters convinced of their righteousness. Liberals slept while AM radio fed poison into America's working class roots and woke to find that poison surrounding them. Hypocrisy has become a meaningless word.
Read the comments, conservative opinions are scarce here because the NYT is "fake news." Our political system has broken on the conflict between reason and belief. You cannot argue a person out of their religion.
I want to trust in our founding father's gamble but I do not see a solution for this. Even if the imagined Democrat backlash actually happens the result is likely to be an NRA fueled armed insurrection rather than compromise.
Has the author actually spoken to Trump supporters? There is no dialogue to be had there, no amount of reasoned debate, no give. Decades worth of carefully stoked hatred and disdain have fashioned a cadre of right wing voters convinced of their righteousness. Liberals slept while AM radio fed poison into America's working class roots and woke to find that poison surrounding them. Hypocrisy has become a meaningless word.
Read the comments, conservative opinions are scarce here because the NYT is "fake news." Our political system has broken on the conflict between reason and belief. You cannot argue a person out of their religion.
I want to trust in our founding father's gamble but I do not see a solution for this. Even if the imagined Democrat backlash actually happens the result is likely to be an NRA fueled armed insurrection rather than compromise.
9
Don't blame 'political hobbyists' for the incompetence of a party. The 'problem with Democrats' isn’t apparent in the loss of the White House or the recent special elections, it goes back to when Obama was elected. Democrats have had plenty of time to change course to remain viable, instead they are now in the position of having only one item to lose which is a veto proof Congress as they have lost everything else. Why try to detract from holding party leadership accountable?
5
This is true, but then who gets to “vet” the party leaders? Are they somehow more competent than the general electorate? They may be determined people with their own hobbyhorses who have come up the ranks from municipal and state contests, which most voters care little about. Unlike for most “jobs,” there are no criteria for those who get these positions. After all, that’s democracy. Otherwise, we would need, specialists, a mandarinate or philosopher-kings, to govern us.
This is obviously what Ben Franklin meant with his perceptive comment. All of the gerrymandering, money in politics, lies and other means of influence can all be mitigated by the public educating itself. The public has to be engaged by understanding how the individuals they elect affect their lives and then vote accordingly.
We have the government that we elected freely and therefore the government we deserve. When your sons die in Iraq, your mother gets poor care in the nursing home and your children cannot afford college, all while the wealth of the country is going to people who do not fight our wars, have no problem buying their children into the college of their choice and have private in-home end of life care for their parents then you know that you voted your heart!
This is the education that the American voter has ignored. Will the voter see the light?
We have the government that we elected freely and therefore the government we deserve. When your sons die in Iraq, your mother gets poor care in the nursing home and your children cannot afford college, all while the wealth of the country is going to people who do not fight our wars, have no problem buying their children into the college of their choice and have private in-home end of life care for their parents then you know that you voted your heart!
This is the education that the American voter has ignored. Will the voter see the light?
11
Not with an alternate universe of alternate facts. Many in the right simply don't have the same information the rest of us have. How do we reconcile that?
1
We have the government we deserve IF voting districts are fair, if they aren't gerrymandered to decide the election outcome before we ever get to the voting booth. However, elections ARE decided before we vote and We, the people, deserve a better government than the one that draws voting districts to get themselves re-elected, that will maximize their influence, minimize their accountability, and keep their seats in office secure.. gerrymandering.
There is no such thing as compromise in politics anymore. The two parties we have spend more time trying to sabotage each other rather than make progress. It's prevalent on both sides of the aisle, and has effectively brought government to a halt. It's shameful.
3
False equivalency. Republicans obstructed Obamacare for eight years. McConnel stole a Supreme Court seat. The blame is not shared equally.
This is an effect looking for a cause. The politics we have today is made up of mutual self-interests among the wealthy, connected and the media. I'm not talking about bias of media, though Fox News is nothing but a mouth organ for the GOP and its donors. It is the shallowness of almost every argument. When was the last time we had a genuine debate over anything. You know DEBATE not sideshow insult ring. During the Vietnam War we had real debates broadcast around the world, where intellectually capable teams of skilled debaters took on the most difficult issues with equally capable monitors to guide the process. Instead, we get small hands with small minds.
This article makes some great points. However, I would argue that the more people pick up politics as a "hobby" -- the better our country will be. Learning about issues, delving into data and understanding the ins-and-outs of how our system operates is crucial for making well-informed voting decisions. If a politician sees high turnout at a Town Hall and can't use lines like "expanding access" as a fig leaf for a bill's true effects, it makes it less likely that bill will get his vote. That's why you have the GOP unable to repeal and replace like they crowed about for 7 years. Sparking political hobbyism is the first step in expanding those more important things like local organizing, midterm voting and the like.
7
In a grander sense, is it possible that the US and it's citizenry are getting what it deserves? Is it possible that the human species has begun the spiral dive that all species make sooner or later?
The limited intelligence, lack of political education and gullibility of the Republican and independent voter is evidence enough for me. The fact that the Democrats can't actually explain how deadly and cruel GOP policies are is more than a failure of political strategy and messaging. It's a sign that we have become too lazy, too selfish, and oblivious to the pain and suffering of "the others" - apathy reigns.
Chaos ahead. We are doomed.
The limited intelligence, lack of political education and gullibility of the Republican and independent voter is evidence enough for me. The fact that the Democrats can't actually explain how deadly and cruel GOP policies are is more than a failure of political strategy and messaging. It's a sign that we have become too lazy, too selfish, and oblivious to the pain and suffering of "the others" - apathy reigns.
Chaos ahead. We are doomed.
2
Sadly, I agree with you. As a species we have reached a point where we can change almost everything with the exception of human behavior. I think it's been a miracle that the world has managed to avoid calamity from nuclear weapons since WWll. But now we have unleashed a different and insidious doomsday weapon that I'm using to publish with right now.The impact of the internet has been both formidable and devastating. Add to this automation and robotics that have robbed our species of enough meaningful work to go around and science and medicine that keep so many of us alive for so much longer than ever before at what appear to be unsustainable costs for advanced societies and we have a bleak future staring us in the face.
I haven't even mentioned climate change which I believe will prove to be an exponential event that already is and will cause increasing global chaos. Our inability to confront our challenges has become more and more apparent. We have great income disparity, failing public education and infrastructure and America now is less advanced in many areas than other countries. In our own the ascension of the right and its contempt for government, the coarsening of our popular culture that has led to the election of a morally bankrupt, fear mongering, childlike and incompetent president has left so many of us in shock. Was it inevitable? Probably.
I haven't even mentioned climate change which I believe will prove to be an exponential event that already is and will cause increasing global chaos. Our inability to confront our challenges has become more and more apparent. We have great income disparity, failing public education and infrastructure and America now is less advanced in many areas than other countries. In our own the ascension of the right and its contempt for government, the coarsening of our popular culture that has led to the election of a morally bankrupt, fear mongering, childlike and incompetent president has left so many of us in shock. Was it inevitable? Probably.
2
I think it is the "spirit of party" coupled with the ease of mass communication that has led to political "hobbyism". If there really is such a thing. We need to revisit the spirit of Americanism.
1
How proudly you paint with your oversized brush. Be careful to avoid that yellow enamel, I hear it can be difficult to wash off. You make many assumptions as you chide us from your lofty halls of academia.
The "fun" you speak of must have eluded me, and from what I've seen, is lacking in the demeanor of those who stand shoulder to shoulder with me on the protest line.
We recognize the differences between our current president and his predecessors, and our outrage is genuine, our mission most urgent. The purpose of your opinion may be to challenge in your eyes, but the result can be destructive to resolve.
In the real world, removed from the corridors of Yale, we struggle against repression on one side, and a hypocritical preconception such as yours on the other. Protecting my family is not a "hobby".
The "fun" you speak of must have eluded me, and from what I've seen, is lacking in the demeanor of those who stand shoulder to shoulder with me on the protest line.
We recognize the differences between our current president and his predecessors, and our outrage is genuine, our mission most urgent. The purpose of your opinion may be to challenge in your eyes, but the result can be destructive to resolve.
In the real world, removed from the corridors of Yale, we struggle against repression on one side, and a hypocritical preconception such as yours on the other. Protecting my family is not a "hobby".
12
As has been said many time, voters have just given up on voting as nothing changes for the better. Obama was hamstrung by the GOP by thinking he could reason with criminals and thieves for the good of the world. Good luck with that! Most of our money still goes primarily to fund wars & conflicts everywhere, etc. just to line the pockets of our infamous military-congressional-industrial complex then to top it off elections and supreme court seats are stolen regularly by the GOP with their illegal immoral policies. Many elections are just plain bought, thanks to our supreme court. Democrats don't ever fight back effectively--a big mystery to many of us.
1
"The problem is that hobbyism is replacing other forms of participation, like local organizing, supporting party organizations, neighbor-to-neighbor persuasion, even voting in midterm elections " Wow, I could not disagree more. Our county Democratic party had a major surge in membership this January, and their meetings have been packed with first-time attendees. Had to go to a lottery system to pick delegates to the state Dem convention, because so many people were interested in attending.
Here in Wisconsin, we suffered a flip of Trump-like proportions back in 2010, so maybe we're ahead of the curve when it comes to activism, compared with the nation. But since then, we've had tons of people calling, going door-to-door, attending boring meetings, entering data, doing all that scutwork--many who got involved for the first time. My observation is that the easier online stuff is in addition to the scutwork, not replacing it. And it's often a "gateway drug" to deeper engagement. You call your senator, see how easy it is, stay engaged on the issues and keep calling... Isn't that a core form of political participation?
Furthermore, it's what many people have time for. People with small kids, demanding jobs, other commitments -- but their phone calls, donations, and attention add up. And make them more likely to vote.
Please, don't put down someone else as a "hobbyist" for not meeting your elite threshold of "serious" action.
Here in Wisconsin, we suffered a flip of Trump-like proportions back in 2010, so maybe we're ahead of the curve when it comes to activism, compared with the nation. But since then, we've had tons of people calling, going door-to-door, attending boring meetings, entering data, doing all that scutwork--many who got involved for the first time. My observation is that the easier online stuff is in addition to the scutwork, not replacing it. And it's often a "gateway drug" to deeper engagement. You call your senator, see how easy it is, stay engaged on the issues and keep calling... Isn't that a core form of political participation?
Furthermore, it's what many people have time for. People with small kids, demanding jobs, other commitments -- but their phone calls, donations, and attention add up. And make them more likely to vote.
Please, don't put down someone else as a "hobbyist" for not meeting your elite threshold of "serious" action.
8
You said just what I was going to say (sans the Wisconsin part...) and said it very well. Brava, Kathy!
I think the author misses the real reason for our decaying democracy, and it is not "hobbyism" by its "participants" - though perhaps it is related to that idea.
Since WWII, the wealthy in America have more and more succeeded in creating a society in which THEY have more and more of the resources - especially since Reagan - and those whom the author chastises as "hobbyists" have less of those resources.
Citizens United was just the icing on the cake...the real danger was the "cake" they were slowly building over decades to support the idea that those with means somehow have a God-given right to rule, even a God-given right to play God over who has what, who is allowed opportunity in this country, and now that we are dealing with issues of health care, even who deserves to live and who "must" die.
The REAL problem in America is that we now live in a country in which it takes SO MUCH ENERGY to lead daily life for the 99%, who do NOT have the resources of the 1% (or the power to bribe - in one form or another - as the 1% have), that we in the 99% actually need to spend more and more and yet more of our time just trying to make ends meet, trying to make it through...we in the 99% have no time, have no energy, left...and the 1% knows this and they alone have the means to outlast us...because they don't have to work two, three, or four jobs to pay their bills.
They now have enough of the resources that THEY can make politics THEIR hobby...or should I say, their hobby horse?
Since WWII, the wealthy in America have more and more succeeded in creating a society in which THEY have more and more of the resources - especially since Reagan - and those whom the author chastises as "hobbyists" have less of those resources.
Citizens United was just the icing on the cake...the real danger was the "cake" they were slowly building over decades to support the idea that those with means somehow have a God-given right to rule, even a God-given right to play God over who has what, who is allowed opportunity in this country, and now that we are dealing with issues of health care, even who deserves to live and who "must" die.
The REAL problem in America is that we now live in a country in which it takes SO MUCH ENERGY to lead daily life for the 99%, who do NOT have the resources of the 1% (or the power to bribe - in one form or another - as the 1% have), that we in the 99% actually need to spend more and more and yet more of our time just trying to make ends meet, trying to make it through...we in the 99% have no time, have no energy, left...and the 1% knows this and they alone have the means to outlast us...because they don't have to work two, three, or four jobs to pay their bills.
They now have enough of the resources that THEY can make politics THEIR hobby...or should I say, their hobby horse?
4
Ah, yes. Let's return to the good old days when ward bosses delivered votes to whichever candidate paid them the most. So much better.
3
Marx observed that the culture of a country was the culture of its ruling class. Certainly true today with Trump in the White House.
2
The problem isn't that too few people vote, it's that too many vote.
People should have to pass a test to vote. Instead voting is a right that costs no effort on the part of those exercising the right and is therefore essentially valueless.
A short five-question test that asks simple questions about the American political system could be devised.
- What are the three branches of government?
- You vote directly for the president T/F?
- etc.
My suspicion is such a test would probably disqualify about half the American electorate and probably 70% of Trump voters. Problem solved.
People should have to pass a test to vote. Instead voting is a right that costs no effort on the part of those exercising the right and is therefore essentially valueless.
A short five-question test that asks simple questions about the American political system could be devised.
- What are the three branches of government?
- You vote directly for the president T/F?
- etc.
My suspicion is such a test would probably disqualify about half the American electorate and probably 70% of Trump voters. Problem solved.
1
You are not helping out - you are part of the problem. Google some studies of college graduation rates, successful self-employed businessmen and businesswomen, doctors/lawyers/college professors, etc. who are conservative and who voted for Trump. You might include union members who voted for Trump.
You are among those who believe things because they want to believe them - not because you have checked and verified the information.
You are among those who believe things because they want to believe them - not because you have checked and verified the information.
1
Dr. Hersh is insulting. Perhaps he thinks he will motivate the blue chair sitters who didn't vote in 2014. So far, my experience with the local democrats is they would like to tell me what to think and what to do for them. I've knocked on doors and made phone calls for them, and even went so far as a lobby day, but when I try to discuss say, health care, or democratic candidates for governor who are interesting but who the establishment isn't going to pick, I'm told "oh no" that isn't what we want. The democrats are top down, shoving nonsense down mindless people's throats. Oh, and the incredibly painful showing my Congressman Trott, where he only answered hand picked questions, left half the people out in a snow storm, announced the meeting 3 days before it happened, and you expect me to cheer him when he says Trump is grand. GAG!
2
I have often made the point that you can't adhere to facts if you do not know them. It is the job of the media, not only to know the facts, it must tell them to the voters in a way that gets them to know them and it must do it in a timely fashion.
For example, the recent series of articles by Elizabeth Rosenthal on health care are really fantastic. The Times should be proud,
BUT these article could have been written anytime in the last 10 years. The Times' coverage of the health care debate was abysmal. At the time, I wrote to a number of the Times' great reporters (Kevin Sack, Reed Abelson, etc.) begging them to write articles like these, and to cover the efforts of single payer advocates, but all in vain. Mr. Sack bluntly told me, "Single payer is not news."
I believe that the Times had an obligation to get these facts out in the early 2000's. I do not know whether they just did not know them, whether they just believed they were "not news," or whether as many folks probably believe, the Times did not want to rock the boat, to make too many corporatist interests unhappy.
I do not know whether the present state of America is due to stupidity, lack of facts, or an insatiable desire for money and power, but we cannot have activity as Prof, Hersh suggest, if we do not know the facts.
But it has to change, and the the only way I see it doing so is through the media.
For example, the recent series of articles by Elizabeth Rosenthal on health care are really fantastic. The Times should be proud,
BUT these article could have been written anytime in the last 10 years. The Times' coverage of the health care debate was abysmal. At the time, I wrote to a number of the Times' great reporters (Kevin Sack, Reed Abelson, etc.) begging them to write articles like these, and to cover the efforts of single payer advocates, but all in vain. Mr. Sack bluntly told me, "Single payer is not news."
I believe that the Times had an obligation to get these facts out in the early 2000's. I do not know whether they just did not know them, whether they just believed they were "not news," or whether as many folks probably believe, the Times did not want to rock the boat, to make too many corporatist interests unhappy.
I do not know whether the present state of America is due to stupidity, lack of facts, or an insatiable desire for money and power, but we cannot have activity as Prof, Hersh suggest, if we do not know the facts.
But it has to change, and the the only way I see it doing so is through the media.
2
Holy cow, this piece touched some nerves! I'm enjoying the ruffled feathers flying all over this comment board. Personally, I found it right on the button. I know several people who'll talk my ear off any chance they get but won't attend a caucus because they'd have to park too far away, As for me, I haven't even reached the level of participation that can be called "hobbyist" yet and that is something I need to change.
There's no engagement in the Democratic Party because the Democratic Party has forgotten it's supposed to connect with human beings.
Jon Ossoff's campaign spent $11 million on ads and less than half a million on voter outreach. It spent three times as much on focus grouping as it did in get out the vote efforts.
So tell me again: who, exactly, is"doing politics wrong"?
Jon Ossoff's campaign spent $11 million on ads and less than half a million on voter outreach. It spent three times as much on focus grouping as it did in get out the vote efforts.
So tell me again: who, exactly, is"doing politics wrong"?
2
Jon Ossoff's campaign gathered about $30 million dollars, most of it from out-of-state donors. After the votes were counted, someone compared the votes Ossoff got with the Democrat candidate in the last 6th District/Georgia election, and did the math. The extra votes for Ossoff cost $5,000 per vote.
1
I am not much impressed by this exercise in political professorism. In between elections, we are indeed mostly spinning our wheels. Until we experience an upheaval that results in a parliamentary system we will be engaged most of the time in various styles of thumb-twiddling most of the time. Perhaps Hersh got paid a few bucks for twiddling his today, and more power to him.
2
Political hobbyism could also be symptomatic of ever evolving American work week. Americans, I suspect Democrats in particular, work multiple jobs just to get by. These jobs don't allow much vacation time or schedule flexibility, making it impossible to participate in local organizing or other meaningful forms of citizenship. For many Americans, TV and Facebook have become a go-to because the local party chapter is sleeping by the time their shift is over. What to do?
The problem is not hobbyism, but that people outside the extremes are dispirited and, in reality, powerless. Anyone who wants to become deeply involved in politics in the current environment (rule by money; falsehoods and slander presented as truth; hyper-partisanship) is on a fool's errand. The ship of state is going down and the best course, other than complete detachment, is to watch the spectacle unfold. Why waste time on politics? Deep pessimism and resignation are actually the smart attitudes to adopt, as opposed to wasting your life trying to keep the tide from coming in.
"The problem is that hobbyism is replacing other forms of participation, like local organizing, supporting party organizations, neighbor-to-neighbor persuasion, even voting...."
Being well informed and voting is the single most effective form of participation. Focus on that should be our top priority.
We need help from the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party needs our help, to make that happen. The same holds for other effective forms of participation.
The Democratic Party hasn't been doing enough to turn ordinary members into engaged activists. It should do more.
Being well informed and voting is the single most effective form of participation. Focus on that should be our top priority.
We need help from the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party needs our help, to make that happen. The same holds for other effective forms of participation.
The Democratic Party hasn't been doing enough to turn ordinary members into engaged activists. It should do more.
1
This struck me as a long-winded finger pointed, essentially, at our surplus of participatory technology. Face Book, Twitter, Instagram all, in one form or another, mitigate against deep committed political engagement. They, intentionally or not, are ideal channels for the sort of hobbyist political activism that is all over this nation like a wet rug and that has added to the deep and currently intractable divide in the nation. By the very nature of this technology we've seen the country "Balkanized" as everyone with a smart phone, iPad or desk top computer can now easily blare out their political or social POV and easily find a willing audience of believers and supplicants.
3
What you are suggesting sounds awfully like replacing a pleasurable leisure-time activity with actual hard work! Hard work may actually produce superior results but leisure-time activity is lots more fun!
Wrong. Mr. Hersh blames the victims. The "problem" with participatory democracy in America is NOT the participants, it's the fact that our political system as now constituted is not a democracy at all but only a Kabuki theater allowing us the illusion once every two years or four years that we're still living in a democracy. We are NOT. Our votes don't "count" when our corrupted, money-controlled two party duopoly allows no choice in the primary system for who we get to vote for. The selection was made before we even stepped into the voting booth. Under Citizen's United, Big Money determines who gets to run for office, not the citizens of the United States. As run by the Oligarchs, the corporations, and the sycophantic press that facilitates this fraud, our “fake” democracy offers the American people no actual choices that represent OUR values. Romney or Obama, Trump or Clinton: What sane person honestly believes that such revolting, toxic, dehumanizing candidates reflect a functioning democracy? To the contrary, far from a democracy, this is "take it or leave it" as dictated by the 1% to the 99%. In short, in a country where democracy has been dismantled before our very eyes, all the divested citizens have left is to be "political hobbyists"; the real act has been ripped from our hands. (Future historians, please note: For the rich in our disgustingly class-based, wealth-based plutocracy, this theft of democracy was like taking candy from a baby.)
2
I think it's important not to confuse hobby with frustrated rage. The politicians who are elected to office by their constituents turn a deaf ear to them before their backsides hit the Congressional and Presidential seats.
Citizens are voiceless, thanks to clandestine Citizens United super pacs, big money donors and powerful special interest groups like the healthcare and insurance industry who pull the political strings of Congress.
Americans can act like we're in some sort of participatory democracy, but we are not. Our government has an agenda that does not include its citizens, nor does it include ethics or morals or fair play.
Citizens are voiceless, thanks to clandestine Citizens United super pacs, big money donors and powerful special interest groups like the healthcare and insurance industry who pull the political strings of Congress.
Americans can act like we're in some sort of participatory democracy, but we are not. Our government has an agenda that does not include its citizens, nor does it include ethics or morals or fair play.
It appears the author really doesn't trust the way our Republic was created.
We really shouldn't rely on the 'little people" with the political process but rather more enlightened folk.
Let's face it , for better or for worse the system works. Check out our state houses, the voters don't like what the Democrats have been selling lately.
We really shouldn't rely on the 'little people" with the political process but rather more enlightened folk.
Let's face it , for better or for worse the system works. Check out our state houses, the voters don't like what the Democrats have been selling lately.
Wow, what a truly depressing point of view this article expresses. I guess we are all really bad people because we watch cable news and use Facebook, gab at barbecues and vote the way we think we should. Then we have the audacity to get depressed because it turns out so badly despite all our "political hobbyist" efforts. I guess even my taking the time to read this article is just the latest example of my own aimless and lazy "political hobbyist" flaw. I will definitely try to curtail such unsettling behavior in the future, which will truly be a no brainer where this author is concerned.
2
This is a thought-provoking and, to me, troubling, column. On the one hand, I applaud the new-found energy on the political left. Indeed, I am part of it, having signed up to make ongoing contributions monthly to a number of political organizations.
On the other hand, I've never heard the term "political hobbyism" before reading this column, and I wonder how much of the left's new-found activism might fall under this phrase. I would hate to think that it would, but then again where were liberal Democrats, including myself, when our Party was hijacked by phony populists - yes Bill, Hillary, and Barack, I'm talking to you - and dying on the vine across the country?
The first test will be the midterms.
On the other hand, I've never heard the term "political hobbyism" before reading this column, and I wonder how much of the left's new-found activism might fall under this phrase. I would hate to think that it would, but then again where were liberal Democrats, including myself, when our Party was hijacked by phony populists - yes Bill, Hillary, and Barack, I'm talking to you - and dying on the vine across the country?
The first test will be the midterms.
According to the Professor, it sounds like the state of democracy in America is like what my Mamaw use to say, "The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead."
Poor people don't vote. The "hobbyists" don't spend the real time and energy to rally them. I cannot even imagine anything similar to the way MLK created the "tent city" in D.C 50 odd years ago. The "Women's March" was another "hobby" event. Did they even reach out to "anti-abortion" females? Is a devout Catholic any less repulsed by Trump? Politics is a contact sport. There is more than a grain of truth in the meme of coastal elitism.
1
Prof. Hersh's tut-tutting about the "instant gratification" of participating in activities that don't yield results seems to be engaging himself in a rather "hollow, self gratifying manifestation of hobbyism".
He seems not to get the anguish and frustration of the great majority of Americans who didn't vote for the clueless dolt currently occupying the White House. Our own laws and our Constitution were adopted to ensure a certain stability in the office of the president, so a quick "cure" of the disastrous and destructive actions of both the president, and leading Republican members of Congress isn't feasible at this point.
He seems not to get the anguish and frustration of the great majority of Americans who didn't vote for the clueless dolt currently occupying the White House. Our own laws and our Constitution were adopted to ensure a certain stability in the office of the president, so a quick "cure" of the disastrous and destructive actions of both the president, and leading Republican members of Congress isn't feasible at this point.
2
I read today that Republicans are trustee-voters. They allow their representatives (House and Senate) to vote against public opinion and for their principles. Interesting how that fits into the writer's theory.
Is it hobbyism or too expecting too much that leaves Dems unable to whip up their outrage?
Is it hobbyism or too expecting too much that leaves Dems unable to whip up their outrage?
I find it interesting that neither the author nor any comments mentions Russian hacking as a factor in the outcome of the recent and likely future election results. Neither active participation nor political hobbyism matter when a foreign power picks the winner.
1
I tried. I really did. In my horribly imbalanced county I tried to volunteer for the local Democratic party. Left emails. Voice mails. Actually tried to find the office in my town the county seat. It had abandoned the office. More emails, voice mails. Crickets.
1
Hersh has written an intersting but irrelevant essay. In Washington and in many state legislatures it is first money that talks, not other forms of face-to-face or online interaction. The second thing that matters is emotion. The religious zealots, gun nuts, and racists are much more emotionally engaged than most other voters. For example, most people who are worried about global warming, who see it as the single greatest threat we face, can't match the passion of those who argue against it, who see it as a conspiracy for profit, or who don't want government to interfere with their unregulated profits.
1
> The second thing that matters is emotion
Eg, Leftist envy of individual achievement.
Eg, Leftist envy of individual achievement.
I think the source of our problems is education. Campaign people know this. Look at the strategy... flood people's mailboxes with 5x8 glossy superficial messages. Exposure (in the form of relentless duplicate mailings) translates into votes. If there are any messages on these mailings, they are often ignored. TV ads, same thing, exposure over message. So we've become a culture of sound bytes, and vote accordingly. Just look at Trump and twitter.
Any spectacle will invite an energized peanut gallery. Otherwise, I couldn't disagree more with this perspective.
Of the many online groups to which I belong (progressive liberals), a common frustration is that the tools available to exact change are insufficient. Even within the highly organized and active advocacy groups, there remains a constant yearning to find a better way to be heard.
For as many people I know who kibitz political on FB, there are at least as many who educated and involve themselves in a meaningful way but who are stumped and frustrated that they might be, as noted, spinning.
A 'hobby' perspective also inflates a symptom of an underlying ailment. Deep divisions fuel fiery debate. But there is a lot more here motivating even the mindless chatter than tribal enthusiasm. The very way in which conservatives think and liberals think (if I can generalize) and how we assess the world, is a classic Venus/ Mars trap. Conservatives will allow for any deed or misdeed, so long as prescribed tenets of virtue are embraced. Liberals eschew abstract ideals and virtues that are not inherently tied to life experienced. Without grasping this fundamental difference, the tendency is to deem malice in the opposition. And so here we stand.
Of the many online groups to which I belong (progressive liberals), a common frustration is that the tools available to exact change are insufficient. Even within the highly organized and active advocacy groups, there remains a constant yearning to find a better way to be heard.
For as many people I know who kibitz political on FB, there are at least as many who educated and involve themselves in a meaningful way but who are stumped and frustrated that they might be, as noted, spinning.
A 'hobby' perspective also inflates a symptom of an underlying ailment. Deep divisions fuel fiery debate. But there is a lot more here motivating even the mindless chatter than tribal enthusiasm. The very way in which conservatives think and liberals think (if I can generalize) and how we assess the world, is a classic Venus/ Mars trap. Conservatives will allow for any deed or misdeed, so long as prescribed tenets of virtue are embraced. Liberals eschew abstract ideals and virtues that are not inherently tied to life experienced. Without grasping this fundamental difference, the tendency is to deem malice in the opposition. And so here we stand.
I guess the right to participate should be taken away, for a while, in order to convince people what a privilege, and responsibility, it is. Republicans want to remove your rights and privileges, and they will if you don't "participate." 50% voter turnout just will not cut it. YOUR vote, your participation, is valuable and irreplaceable. ONLY YOU can do it.
3
But what is a person to do? Money has so distorted the political process that the sincere entreaties of average people to their elected representatives is no more than patronizing ritual. Meaningful discussion of important issues has given way to sophistry - arguing to prevail with no intent of compromise: win at all cost. Thus, members of Congress - almost all of whom are millionaires - strut like peacocks, waiting to be interviewed for a cable news segment. Elites, from all sides, are resolute in their beliefs that they are right and from their righteousness, that they have the authority to impose their views on to others, right down to the size of a soft drink one is permitted to buy, to the ability of a person living in America's rural and wilderness areas to own a gun. The point being that politicians have become jesters for the super-rich, and thus have little patience for seeking accommodation among our widely diverse people. Opinions are formed by paid TV professionals (experts?) rather than by individuals, as preferred by Christopher Lasch and even by George Orwell. Sadly, we live in a time when average people are becoming superfluous. Case in point: how can the richest country in the world not be able to afford health care for all? Can it be because the right does not believe that government should be involved in the process; while the left does not want to lose financial support from the healthcare industry?
3
In other words, we should not let hobbyists elect the president by direct suffrage. We should let a college of professionals do that. Electoral colleges would pick candidates and THE electoral college would decide the presidency. Sorry, been there done that, and now we got trump. How about education for all, really, scientific education in particular, because even its hobbyist respect facts!
4
Hobbyists are also informed voters. What is also need is more voters to vote, period. Grass roots organizations are necessary. More than 2 parties are necessary. Shorter primaries are necessary. Shorter General Elections are needed. And most of all we should open the polls, as they do in some European nations, for 7 days to make it easier for every one to vote. And no more gerrymandering to "fix" the vote.
4
How many voted in the 2016 election based on a Television Commercial?
How many times did I meet a person who told be that he/she was voting for Trump? When I asked why, the response always was: "He'll make America Great Again". When I asked how: "He'll bring back coal jobs, drain the swamp" etc. When asked exactly how...He just will.
I found similar rhetoric on the Democratic side.
Ask the average person how many Supreme Court Justices there are or what the Function of the Supreme court is. As who their 2 Senators are or which member of the House represents their district. The answer will surprise you as they've shocked me.
Political Hobbism surely exists, but that is hardly an issue as compared to the deterioration in education and critical thinking. Thus we have others doing the thinking for us and telling us what to do and who to vote for. Certainly, this has always existed, but it really came to fruition in 2016.
For once, we need to start looking at problem roots and not be so obsessed with damage control.
How many times did I meet a person who told be that he/she was voting for Trump? When I asked why, the response always was: "He'll make America Great Again". When I asked how: "He'll bring back coal jobs, drain the swamp" etc. When asked exactly how...He just will.
I found similar rhetoric on the Democratic side.
Ask the average person how many Supreme Court Justices there are or what the Function of the Supreme court is. As who their 2 Senators are or which member of the House represents their district. The answer will surprise you as they've shocked me.
Political Hobbism surely exists, but that is hardly an issue as compared to the deterioration in education and critical thinking. Thus we have others doing the thinking for us and telling us what to do and who to vote for. Certainly, this has always existed, but it really came to fruition in 2016.
For once, we need to start looking at problem roots and not be so obsessed with damage control.
5
Some great points you made. I always see the look of disdain whenever I raise politics in a social setting. I can't get enough of cable news but Political Science was my BA major. The combination of technology and populism has been fascinating (for me) to watch as it unfolds, yet probably not healthy to the idea that democracy is foremost a responsibility. If we want it to work properly, anyway. It seems staggering to me that only 54% of those eligible to vote actually participated in the 2016 Presidential Election.
Another aspect I find interesting is that whenever I travel overseas people are very interested to understand what is actually going on in US politics, at least enough to ask me, and that has been happening for many years before our current President came on the scene. Americans, or maybe just my friends, not so much.
I sometimes feel cable news has done so well in past decades in that it allows one to have a daily engagement in politics when the only other creature in your life who will willingly participate is the dog!
Another aspect I find interesting is that whenever I travel overseas people are very interested to understand what is actually going on in US politics, at least enough to ask me, and that has been happening for many years before our current President came on the scene. Americans, or maybe just my friends, not so much.
I sometimes feel cable news has done so well in past decades in that it allows one to have a daily engagement in politics when the only other creature in your life who will willingly participate is the dog!
1
Back when I was in grad school in the late 1970s Carol Hughes and George Barnett conducted a study in which found people who watched the national news on television thought of this act as making them politically active
(Couch potato activism?). But in reality being informed is the first step to being politically active--talking with your colleagues, neighbors etc. This is not a new phenomenon, Dr.Hersh.
DeTocqueville called us a "nation of individuals" --we come together as a public to solve problems then return to our private lives. Now, citizens feel that there are problems that need to be addressed --and are doing so. Calling them Political
Hobbyists Dr Hersh is not doing our democracy a service. It is step one.
I think we should celebrate the increase in political information and outreach. More people are showing up to local political meetings and actions. More people are stepping up to challenge politicians who have forgotten they work for the citizens not the lobbyists.
Democracy works when citizens are engaged.
(Couch potato activism?). But in reality being informed is the first step to being politically active--talking with your colleagues, neighbors etc. This is not a new phenomenon, Dr.Hersh.
DeTocqueville called us a "nation of individuals" --we come together as a public to solve problems then return to our private lives. Now, citizens feel that there are problems that need to be addressed --and are doing so. Calling them Political
Hobbyists Dr Hersh is not doing our democracy a service. It is step one.
I think we should celebrate the increase in political information and outreach. More people are showing up to local political meetings and actions. More people are stepping up to challenge politicians who have forgotten they work for the citizens not the lobbyists.
Democracy works when citizens are engaged.
5
> Back when I was in grad school in the late 1970s Carol Hughes and George Barnett conducted a study in which found people who watched the national news on television thought of this act as making them politically active
Science is not public opinion polls.
Science is not public opinion polls.
That study was not a public opinion poll, btw.
Democracy is a flawed process, the way we practice it. We have a "unconventional" president, who was voted in with a minority of voters, who has at most a 40% approval and at least a 51% disapproval rating, who has no caution as he and his allies try to change the very nature of our country. He is fighting the trend of globalist history like the Luddites of 18th century England, he has opened the "Populist" floodgates that had nudged our citizens toward civility, and ignited a religious pogrom. If this course is not altered, we will have a different country in a relatively short time. Is this Democracy if the majority doesn't want this change? What does the citizen do? work against a gerrymandered congressional race in 2 years? wait 4 years for the next presidential election? or go to the streets? We can't have a Democracy where the 35% get to make changes to our basic, core makeup. The times are not difficult they are dangerous, we had a congressman shot recently. Hobbyists are the leading flank of a rejection of he current direction. If the Republican leadership can't see that and modify it, then we will have a constitutional crisis or revolt on our hands pretty soon. Then the Russians can take credit for the fall of the American Empire.
5
Very perceptive. We are confusing politics with entertainment, which benefits neither. I agree that while liberals/Democrats are very interested right now, that may not amount to much. As for the binding primaries, there is really no remedy for bad judgment on the part of voters in a democracy. It's a shame that there are not more parties to choose from.
3
For a Political Science professor to state at this length such an interesting and potentially helpful observation without using any data to support either the premise or the examples reduces the piece to a provocative opinion - ironically, exactly the kind one would more expect to see from a "hobbyist" than an academic seeking to use his expertise to make a serious contribution.
7
"Reduces the piece to a provocative opinion"? Buddy, you're reading an opinion article in a newspaper, not a formal study in an academic journal. This is exactly what it's supposed to be.
I am apparently in a decided minority: I largely agree with the article. Here is why:
By my freshman year in college, I was polling blue collar neighborhoods about the war in Viet Nam. Yelled at, threatened or ignored, we knew we were right, but we knew engagement was required. So we marched. Over the next few years as the popular will was ignored and the war continued, we changed the popular view of the war. By altering perspectives, more Americans saw what was happening differently. Marches grew to millions with leaders and everyday citizens.
When we no longer invest in old school shows of strength, we sit at home, in between texting and trolling, and elevate our egos by posting opinions. Guys like Trump and Limbaugh eat that up. It insures our lack of effectiveness.
Here is what the real problem is: both parties are beholden to the money of factions of the 1%. They are no longer vehicles for our needs and dreams. They love when we stay home with our smart phones. Money controls who we vote for. By the time we vote we only anoint someone else's preference.
As the GOP has learned, he who controls the process wins. They didn't go to the people as much as to the states and wards.
This is no longer a war between parties, but for whom the process works. We, as citizens, need to take the parties and process back from money. Voting is the last stage in a process already lost. We need less "participation" and more time in protest. We need to be seen and heard in ONE voice!
By my freshman year in college, I was polling blue collar neighborhoods about the war in Viet Nam. Yelled at, threatened or ignored, we knew we were right, but we knew engagement was required. So we marched. Over the next few years as the popular will was ignored and the war continued, we changed the popular view of the war. By altering perspectives, more Americans saw what was happening differently. Marches grew to millions with leaders and everyday citizens.
When we no longer invest in old school shows of strength, we sit at home, in between texting and trolling, and elevate our egos by posting opinions. Guys like Trump and Limbaugh eat that up. It insures our lack of effectiveness.
Here is what the real problem is: both parties are beholden to the money of factions of the 1%. They are no longer vehicles for our needs and dreams. They love when we stay home with our smart phones. Money controls who we vote for. By the time we vote we only anoint someone else's preference.
As the GOP has learned, he who controls the process wins. They didn't go to the people as much as to the states and wards.
This is no longer a war between parties, but for whom the process works. We, as citizens, need to take the parties and process back from money. Voting is the last stage in a process already lost. We need less "participation" and more time in protest. We need to be seen and heard in ONE voice!
10
Our democracy is a 228 year old experiment and seeks cultural pluralism.
Finding our nations way back to the center of this experiment will take an Historical voter turnout out in 2018.
Finding our nations way back to the center of this experiment will take an Historical voter turnout out in 2018.
4
Participatory democracy would be great if we in fact lived in one. We live in a right-wing dominated oligarchy. (Check Tim Egan' column from a week or so ago and look at recent academic research on how the interests and preferences of ordinary citizens outside of the upper 5% or so have had almost no effect on politicians of any stripe since the around the time of Reagen or even before). Moreover, people with a progressive vision, e.g., FDR New Deal/Bernie Sanders/Democratic Socialist views (including taking obscene profit out of healthcare with Medicare for all, drastically scaling back our military spending and immediately ending all military actions in the Middle East/Afghanistan, developing a coordinated Manhattan type project to address climate change, ending poverty and raising the standard of living for the bottom 50%, and fixing our broken local policing system, have no party to participate in because of the rigid and rigged two party system and the abdication of the Democratic Party of any progressive positions.
7
Dr. Hersh makes a few (a very few) valid points. However, he earned his BA in 2005, which indicates he was likely born in the early eighties. I think he is failing to take into account a few things he likely knows little about. This is an excellent article for all those who, like himself, were born after the invention of the computer and other technologies which led to the array of communication devices we have today. Those of us who are the age of his parents and grand parents have a different experience in political participation.
He forgets that family life is different today. In the past, there was often only one person in the family working. One income was sufficient to support the basic necessities. Today, both parents have to work. So, how much time do they really have to be politically involved?
Even so, there are hundreds of thousands of people who do far more than tweet/facebook. I assert that this hobbyism he denigrates is actually a good thing so long as it gets people to the polls. They are informed, That's a whole lot better than someone who blindly votes without knowing the candidates' positions.
Then there's older voters who lack the physical energy to do some of the heavy political participation we once did. Twitter/facebook/on-line petitions and the like offer a way to do more than our bodies allow.
Maybe younger voters do see engagement as entertainment. Most of us do NOT. While the article contains some truths, it also insults the majority of voters.
He forgets that family life is different today. In the past, there was often only one person in the family working. One income was sufficient to support the basic necessities. Today, both parents have to work. So, how much time do they really have to be politically involved?
Even so, there are hundreds of thousands of people who do far more than tweet/facebook. I assert that this hobbyism he denigrates is actually a good thing so long as it gets people to the polls. They are informed, That's a whole lot better than someone who blindly votes without knowing the candidates' positions.
Then there's older voters who lack the physical energy to do some of the heavy political participation we once did. Twitter/facebook/on-line petitions and the like offer a way to do more than our bodies allow.
Maybe younger voters do see engagement as entertainment. Most of us do NOT. While the article contains some truths, it also insults the majority of voters.
13
Thank you, Ms. Hodge, for pointing out the ignorance upon which this article is based and how it underscores the huge generation gap in how we perceive and experience politics.
I have worked as a Democratic campaign consultant since the early 1970s, which was awash in peaceful protests, consciousness-raising groups, and door-to-door canvassing for both candidates and causes. Now, in Florida, I see these same people - for example, as members of the League of Women Voters, where the median age is about 105 (okay, I exaggerate!) - and, yes, we're exhausted. I was especially frustrated this week when my 22-year-old grandson announced that he "participates" in politics 24 hours a day - on Facebook, in Tweets, and watching news headlines - and is a Republican because he wants "small government, lower taxes, and a crackdown on illegal immigrants" - straight out of the party's message-of-the-day playbook. There is NOTHING in his experience related to any of these issues, and he does nothing to inform himself or add to the dialogue except to engage in the "hobbies" that Mr. Hersh describes.
I too wish that the Democrats - and Republicans too - would advance some concrete strategies for engagement. But let's face it, it's far easier to control the agenda in a country full of hobbyists than it is with activists who are genuinely committed to getting things done. Doesn't bode well for our future.
I have worked as a Democratic campaign consultant since the early 1970s, which was awash in peaceful protests, consciousness-raising groups, and door-to-door canvassing for both candidates and causes. Now, in Florida, I see these same people - for example, as members of the League of Women Voters, where the median age is about 105 (okay, I exaggerate!) - and, yes, we're exhausted. I was especially frustrated this week when my 22-year-old grandson announced that he "participates" in politics 24 hours a day - on Facebook, in Tweets, and watching news headlines - and is a Republican because he wants "small government, lower taxes, and a crackdown on illegal immigrants" - straight out of the party's message-of-the-day playbook. There is NOTHING in his experience related to any of these issues, and he does nothing to inform himself or add to the dialogue except to engage in the "hobbies" that Mr. Hersh describes.
I too wish that the Democrats - and Republicans too - would advance some concrete strategies for engagement. But let's face it, it's far easier to control the agenda in a country full of hobbyists than it is with activists who are genuinely committed to getting things done. Doesn't bode well for our future.
5
" I assert that this hobbyism he denigrates is actually a good thing so long as it gets people to the polls."
Except that people have not been getting to the polls, have they? That's part of the unsolved problem right there.
Except that people have not been getting to the polls, have they? That's part of the unsolved problem right there.
I find this article to be a bit of hot air, much sound and fury signifying nothing. Political engagement is important in a democracy, but in a country with 320 million people it makes no sense for everybody to spent most of their time in political activities, there are other just as important jobs to do. What democracy needs is a well informed population that can tell the difference between propaganda and facts, between politicians who are just hungry for power and those who genuinely wish to dedicate their lives to improving the commonwealth. A big challenge facing the US today is how to combat the proliferation of gross misinformation and disinformation that has led an unfortunately large percentage of voters to prefer power hungry politicians over dedicated public servants. It is very hard to change the mind of people who are convinced that anything that contradicts their beliefs is a lie and that lies supporting their convictions are facts.
26
A large portion of very well educated people are equally impervious to views or ideas that contradict their own. That problem is very two-sided until we on the Left take that seriously we won't be winning any elections and frankly nor should we. I say this as someone who is avowedly liberal and teaches and works in a university. While there may not be as many outright lies spiriting the outlooks of liberal elitists, there are just as many half-truths and blind spots and an equal unwillingness to take seriously the ideas of those with whom you disagree or whose contradictory experience to your own assumptions makes things look a lot messier than they are in your worldview.
7
One of the most important aspects of being well educated is critical thinking. Critical thinking requires one to reexamine one's beliefs and consider multiple sources of information before making up ones mind.
I do not consider educated people unwilling to do so well educated.
We all have biases that incline us to accept some statements as more likely true than others. We should struggle to keep an open mind. But as Carl Sagan said "We must always keep an open mind, but not so open that our brains fall out."
I do not consider educated people unwilling to do so well educated.
We all have biases that incline us to accept some statements as more likely true than others. We should struggle to keep an open mind. But as Carl Sagan said "We must always keep an open mind, but not so open that our brains fall out."
I always thought trees could live forever. Turns out their lifespans vary according to their species. I had the same misconception about American democracy and the freedoms I was lucky to be born into.
Thanks to the bravery, compassion, and commitment to decency of people who came before me, I escaped the horrors of Christian crusades, world wars, lynchings, American interment camps, death by self-mutilation (thanks to Roe v Wade), being groped ... or so I thought.
Before 2000, I viewed politics as a "necessary evil", to be watched and tolerated. I trusted in the enduring protections of our constitutional laws and the leadership, though I might not agree with them on all points, to adhere to the concept of working toward the greater good.
Now the blatant assault on destroying American decency at home and abroad by the ruling party and this administration, is so intolerable and insulting that the promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can no longer be taken for granted.
This latent political activism is no hobby.
Thanks to the bravery, compassion, and commitment to decency of people who came before me, I escaped the horrors of Christian crusades, world wars, lynchings, American interment camps, death by self-mutilation (thanks to Roe v Wade), being groped ... or so I thought.
Before 2000, I viewed politics as a "necessary evil", to be watched and tolerated. I trusted in the enduring protections of our constitutional laws and the leadership, though I might not agree with them on all points, to adhere to the concept of working toward the greater good.
Now the blatant assault on destroying American decency at home and abroad by the ruling party and this administration, is so intolerable and insulting that the promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can no longer be taken for granted.
This latent political activism is no hobby.
79
Ok, most time people spend on politics is counterproductive, but what does doing it right look like? Calling and writing representatives? I don't know of a more efficient way to remind elected officials they have constituents beyond those they call weekly for cash.
13
I believe doing it right starts at the local level. Most people don't realize the enormous power citizens hold, but a handful of committed people willing to knock on the door of a city councilman can change the city agenda in most locales. A lone individual willing to knock on doors and have serious heart-to-heart talks with neighbors can be more influential in turning a congressional precinct from one candidate to another than a ton of outside advertising money. Fifty such people may turn a district from blue to red or vice versa. I have tried (sometimes unsuccessfully) to completely drop out of online political discussion especially if they are heated and unsubstantial because it's not going to make a difference in politics or in the world. Now, we've reached a nadir because Democrats have lost control at the state and regional level, too.
Agreed, Furthermore, Hersh fails to tell us when we "did it right," as if our democratic participation had a golden era. Please remind me when that was. Perhaps when President Nixon coined the phrase "the silent majority"? Oh, sorry, that argues against Hersh's premise, doesn't it?
There are a number of faults inherent in online democratic participation. Hersh's commentary, however, sounds like nothing so much as, "When _I_ went to school we had to walk uphill both ways......"
There are a number of faults inherent in online democratic participation. Hersh's commentary, however, sounds like nothing so much as, "When _I_ went to school we had to walk uphill both ways......"
If gerrymandering is not a effective, why is it so vigorously pursued?
And why are the votes of some citizens so actively thwarted?
And why are the votes of some citizens so actively thwarted?
17
Perhaps a bit off the subject, however one of the issues with politics in the US may have emerged out from the greed of Hollywood. I do not recall the date or even the year, but the year when writers in Hollywood went on strike was the launching pad for "reality" TV. This genre became a cheap form of entertainment to produce to fill the void, often with the subjects of the show exploiting themselves into an alternate reality in exchange for a bit of fame, fortune and flash.
Fast forwarding to 2015 or perhaps even earlier, information for HRC's candidacy began to emerge on news broadcasts in drips and drabs, which big money backed thinking their gal will return to 1600, by way of a slow but steady pace with either her name or face in the news. But Bernie stepped in and stole the show and we all know what happened thereafter. Meanwhile, reality was on a different path and Donald Trump seized every opportunity using the tools Hollywood created; the spectacle of reality TV.
Fast forwarding to 2015 or perhaps even earlier, information for HRC's candidacy began to emerge on news broadcasts in drips and drabs, which big money backed thinking their gal will return to 1600, by way of a slow but steady pace with either her name or face in the news. But Bernie stepped in and stole the show and we all know what happened thereafter. Meanwhile, reality was on a different path and Donald Trump seized every opportunity using the tools Hollywood created; the spectacle of reality TV.
2
The map to GOP dominance was drawn by Louis Powell in 1971.
http://law2.wlu.edu/deptimages/Powell%20Archives/PowellMemorandumTypescr...
It laid out a long term plan for the GOP to rise to dominance. When the Democrats abandoned unions and the American worker and then embraced identity politics, they just helped!
http://law2.wlu.edu/deptimages/Powell%20Archives/PowellMemorandumTypescr...
It laid out a long term plan for the GOP to rise to dominance. When the Democrats abandoned unions and the American worker and then embraced identity politics, they just helped!
23
Yes, the Democratic Party still doesn't get this. Witness how Hillary Clinton is imperious to this fact and still doesn't understand this and will never admit that she's was just not believable no matter how good her intentions. Look at what we got for president over her!
Hersh makes several really valid points. In some ways our national political life has become like a sporting event that we watch, cheer, boo, and shout about on the weekends, but go back to our regular humdrum life on Monday. In our instantly gratified lives we forget that responsible government through consensus takes years, often decades.
However, to totally discount the effects of gerrymandered redistricting efforts is ridiculous.
State electoral maps have been gerrymandered to reduce the influence of racial minorities by depressing the impact of their votes. For example, in North Carolina the courts ruled that voter suppression through gerrymandering was done with "surgical precision" to squelch voices some did not want to reach the ballot box.
Which came first political "hobbyism" or the realization that for many our votes do not count as much as they have in the past? Often it feels that our Constitution has been amended with a new opening phrase: "We the politicians...."
However, to totally discount the effects of gerrymandered redistricting efforts is ridiculous.
State electoral maps have been gerrymandered to reduce the influence of racial minorities by depressing the impact of their votes. For example, in North Carolina the courts ruled that voter suppression through gerrymandering was done with "surgical precision" to squelch voices some did not want to reach the ballot box.
Which came first political "hobbyism" or the realization that for many our votes do not count as much as they have in the past? Often it feels that our Constitution has been amended with a new opening phrase: "We the politicians...."
25
Agree. The author makes some valid points and is dismissive of others' importance, which you note.
In professional competitive sports, the team always knows where its goal is and hopefully has strategy, skills and stamina to 'score'. Frustratingly, our political "teams" lack such clarity and cohesion.
Political passion knows neither how or nor where to participate, because party power mongers hoard the ball and ignore their constituent members, while other secret select players jockey for advantage. People are pawns used to block political opponents, but the goal we sought is not the one we get.
In professional competitive sports, the team always knows where its goal is and hopefully has strategy, skills and stamina to 'score'. Frustratingly, our political "teams" lack such clarity and cohesion.
Political passion knows neither how or nor where to participate, because party power mongers hoard the ball and ignore their constituent members, while other secret select players jockey for advantage. People are pawns used to block political opponents, but the goal we sought is not the one we get.
10
I would like to point something out in regard to gerry-mandering. The winning party in every state gerry-manders to ensure "safe" districts. For a party to lose the gerry-mandering power means they lost state power. In other words, one party tossed the other rascals out DESPITE the gerry-mandered districts.
Voter will trumps (no word play intended) gerry-mandering. The democrat party has lost nearly 1000 state seats. That is due to poor messaging, shifts in platforms, and abandonment of the middle class.
If you want to win back that opportunity to "re-gerry-mander" in your state then concentrate on what got you into this mess in the first place.
Voter will trumps (no word play intended) gerry-mandering. The democrat party has lost nearly 1000 state seats. That is due to poor messaging, shifts in platforms, and abandonment of the middle class.
If you want to win back that opportunity to "re-gerry-mander" in your state then concentrate on what got you into this mess in the first place.
This op-ed piece could have said what it had to say in half the words. And the point is pretty obvious and not very revolutionary.
6
When the French sociologist and political theorist, Alexis de Tocqueville visited America in 1831, he was impressed by how local communities were active in politics and the extent of self-governance in townships in New England. He was convinced that direct democracy was key to democracy in America.
"The problem is that hobbyism is replacing other forms of participation, like local organizing, supporting party organizations, neighbor-to-neighbor persuasion..." Indeed, if Democrats don't want their country to become a one-party democracy, they need to be more engaged and adopt the bottom-up approach in the Red States. Perhaps they should read de Tocqueville's 1835 monumental work: "Democracy in America".
"The problem is that hobbyism is replacing other forms of participation, like local organizing, supporting party organizations, neighbor-to-neighbor persuasion..." Indeed, if Democrats don't want their country to become a one-party democracy, they need to be more engaged and adopt the bottom-up approach in the Red States. Perhaps they should read de Tocqueville's 1835 monumental work: "Democracy in America".
10
Perhaps the biggest mistake made by de Tocqueville, and many still, is to think that the model of New England self-governance holds for the entire nation. It does not; as Colin Woodard showed in "American Nations", there are vast swaths of the US settled by people who did not believe education, much less voting, should be extended beyond the wealthy (white, male) elite. Notably the South.
Appalachia often sided with the south in rejecting education and public-process decision-making in favor of patriarchy and fierce individualism. However, because of this opposition to secular education and elitism, Appalachia often also has rejected the South's dominance. Hence, their support for Trump, which comes from different values from those of the Southerners, but at this time brings them into coalition.
There are other "nations" here since our colonial days that also are not as bent on public education and service as New England. The notable tolerance in the Midlands (think William Penn) that made it a safe haven for Mennonites, the Amish and more has come down as a reluctance to "get involved" with more than family, neighborhood, church and kids' sports.
De Tocqueville has much to say, but other parts of our nation's history still shape patterns of political participation, too.
Appalachia often sided with the south in rejecting education and public-process decision-making in favor of patriarchy and fierce individualism. However, because of this opposition to secular education and elitism, Appalachia often also has rejected the South's dominance. Hence, their support for Trump, which comes from different values from those of the Southerners, but at this time brings them into coalition.
There are other "nations" here since our colonial days that also are not as bent on public education and service as New England. The notable tolerance in the Midlands (think William Penn) that made it a safe haven for Mennonites, the Amish and more has come down as a reluctance to "get involved" with more than family, neighborhood, church and kids' sports.
De Tocqueville has much to say, but other parts of our nation's history still shape patterns of political participation, too.
From his chair in an ivory tower, it's fairly clear that Dr. Hersh has never been a real activist, but prefers to call those of us who are alarmed and disgusted at the deconstruction of democracy simple "hobbyists."
What has undermined democracy in the U.S. since the ascendancy of GOP forces is the Citizen's United decision on a national level, and on a local level it's the gerrymandering calculated to ensure the safety of the GOP majority in Congress and locally. Those are the real "hobby-lobbyists" who do not need to reveal their political goals overtly.
Those of us who have been involved in political action since the Vietnam debacle (and there are many of us) are heartened to see hundreds of thousands on the streets, signing petitions, and deciding to run for local and/or national office.
The first step toward restoring a modicum of sanity to our current political landscape is to welcome all who are inclined to make their opinions known in whatever manner they choose, and his denigration of all efforts that don't meet his personal (i.e., academic) definition of political action lays bare Dr. Hersh's own inflated sense of self-righteousness.
What has undermined democracy in the U.S. since the ascendancy of GOP forces is the Citizen's United decision on a national level, and on a local level it's the gerrymandering calculated to ensure the safety of the GOP majority in Congress and locally. Those are the real "hobby-lobbyists" who do not need to reveal their political goals overtly.
Those of us who have been involved in political action since the Vietnam debacle (and there are many of us) are heartened to see hundreds of thousands on the streets, signing petitions, and deciding to run for local and/or national office.
The first step toward restoring a modicum of sanity to our current political landscape is to welcome all who are inclined to make their opinions known in whatever manner they choose, and his denigration of all efforts that don't meet his personal (i.e., academic) definition of political action lays bare Dr. Hersh's own inflated sense of self-righteousness.
55
Let's not forget that this is a country of 325,000,000 people. The most popular cable shows struggle to attack 1% of them. The electoral system is based on very low turn out primaries staged too far in advance of November elections.
Crazy people participate and sensible people focus on real life at home with their families and friends.
Crazy people participate and sensible people focus on real life at home with their families and friends.
6
The fact that 325,000,000 people must choose between only two political parties illustrates the core of the problem. Also why a large percentage of the (disenfranchised) population doesn't vote at all.
6
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Winston Churchill
25
> The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Or average political scientist.
Or average political scientist.
1
Far from being a distraction and waste of time, social media are the best hope for democracy since Gutenberg invented moveable type.
The 2016 Presidential candidacy of Senator Sanders was made possible precisely because of tens of millions of dollars raised on the internet. Previous progressive Democratic candidates customarily failed early, unable to get funding from a few ultra-wealthy, pro-corporate backers.
The ability of millions of small donors to affect elections via social media will inevitably decisively change American politics.
The 2016 Presidential candidacy of Senator Sanders was made possible precisely because of tens of millions of dollars raised on the internet. Previous progressive Democratic candidates customarily failed early, unable to get funding from a few ultra-wealthy, pro-corporate backers.
The ability of millions of small donors to affect elections via social media will inevitably decisively change American politics.
14
Learning new things and understanding the clever trickery of Fox news etc. and Trump oddities should be enjoyable , as is most discovery and learning. This may well be a gateway to more sustained civil action, which is sorely needed. Certainly, there is no evidence it reduces civil action. More importantly sustained informed conversations has the potential to self correct Democracy. For the moment such "paying attention" has the mean spirited assault on America's health on the run. Lots hope and pray for more such public engagement the future.
6
The opposite of a hobbyist is a professional. Republicans are very professional, it is true. Professionals work for money. And the Senate healthcare bill makes plain whose money is being sought. Later there will be tax 'reform' (cuts) and an infrastructure bill that ultimately is paid through tolls on ordinary folks. If this is what the American people want, they should go for it. The only reason liberals exist at all is that people eventually figure out that we can't all be in the 1%.
10
Sure, just blame the voters.
I recently encountered the term “competitive authoritarianism” in Robert Mickey’s, Steven Levitsky’s and Lucan Ahmad Way’s, “Is America Still Safe for Democracy?”; Foreign Affairs, May/June 2017.
Elaborating on the authors’ use of the term, I suggest that competitive authoritarianism is:
~a polarized system in which politicians within the major parties compete for donor dollars and base support, and, when in the majority, impose the policies favored by donors and/or base on the citizenry as a whole;
~a system wherein the trappings of democracy (a constitution, elections of the chief executive and congressional legislators, policy debates, the rule of law, a system of checks and balances, etc.) remain in place, but in which democratic norms are undermined and democratic institutions are severely weakened, primarily through the sharply increased influence of money and demagogic power in politics;
~a system wherein government officials—by obstructionism, by refusing to debate issues on their merits, by secretiveness, by bending procedural rules, etc.—abuse state power in order to aid their allies and disadvantage their adversaries;
~a system in which the considered preferences of the majority of citizens are ignored and abuses of power go well beyond those associated with traditional patronage.
It is surely the average voter's fault that the term "competitive authoritarianism" now best describes our nation's economic-political situation.
I recently encountered the term “competitive authoritarianism” in Robert Mickey’s, Steven Levitsky’s and Lucan Ahmad Way’s, “Is America Still Safe for Democracy?”; Foreign Affairs, May/June 2017.
Elaborating on the authors’ use of the term, I suggest that competitive authoritarianism is:
~a polarized system in which politicians within the major parties compete for donor dollars and base support, and, when in the majority, impose the policies favored by donors and/or base on the citizenry as a whole;
~a system wherein the trappings of democracy (a constitution, elections of the chief executive and congressional legislators, policy debates, the rule of law, a system of checks and balances, etc.) remain in place, but in which democratic norms are undermined and democratic institutions are severely weakened, primarily through the sharply increased influence of money and demagogic power in politics;
~a system wherein government officials—by obstructionism, by refusing to debate issues on their merits, by secretiveness, by bending procedural rules, etc.—abuse state power in order to aid their allies and disadvantage their adversaries;
~a system in which the considered preferences of the majority of citizens are ignored and abuses of power go well beyond those associated with traditional patronage.
It is surely the average voter's fault that the term "competitive authoritarianism" now best describes our nation's economic-political situation.
29
The two greatest threats to our country today are: Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans. Both are ideologues. Both care only for ideological purity, not for doing what's right.
15
The problem is "Conservative Republican" describes about 95% of the GOP.
5
Try again. There are two types of Republicans- Conservative and Extremely Conservative. By that measure, the entire Republican party is a threat, and the evidence bears it out.
There are Conservative Democrats, Moderate Democrats, and Liberal Democrats. Now, besides the fact that Liberal ones are no threat to the country (unless helping the poor, protecting the environment, and making the economy fairer are now "threats"), what any casual observer can see is that Liberals have very little power in the entire political system due to big money donors. And that includes the Democratic party.
So your statement is demonstrably false.
There are Conservative Democrats, Moderate Democrats, and Liberal Democrats. Now, besides the fact that Liberal ones are no threat to the country (unless helping the poor, protecting the environment, and making the economy fairer are now "threats"), what any casual observer can see is that Liberals have very little power in the entire political system due to big money donors. And that includes the Democratic party.
So your statement is demonstrably false.
Let me add one more serious error that has allowed the deterioration of politics into one of celebrities and sound-bits,
The Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The Seventeenth allows for the popular election of senators from the Several States in lieu of them being selected by the legislatures of the Several States.
This has resulted in the "pretty face" or populist "sound-byte" candidate being selected instead of people who have demonstrated political accomplishment and skills sufficient to be selected by the representatives of The People to be their voice in the Senate.
Gone are the people with political skills and a broad base of POLITICAL support within their states. Gone are the people who are interested in and capable of working with their colleagues to accomplish good for the people of their state and their nation.
But far more importantly, gone are the STATESMEN that the Senate used regularly to produce that lead the nation by often impassioned but always reasonable and principled conduct on the floor of that august body.
The nation has been the victim of a cruel and unusual hoax in thinking that the popular election of a body of our legislature allegedly dedicated to the interests of the Several States was a good idea.
TIME TO REPEAL THE 17TH AMENDMENT.
The Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The Seventeenth allows for the popular election of senators from the Several States in lieu of them being selected by the legislatures of the Several States.
This has resulted in the "pretty face" or populist "sound-byte" candidate being selected instead of people who have demonstrated political accomplishment and skills sufficient to be selected by the representatives of The People to be their voice in the Senate.
Gone are the people with political skills and a broad base of POLITICAL support within their states. Gone are the people who are interested in and capable of working with their colleagues to accomplish good for the people of their state and their nation.
But far more importantly, gone are the STATESMEN that the Senate used regularly to produce that lead the nation by often impassioned but always reasonable and principled conduct on the floor of that august body.
The nation has been the victim of a cruel and unusual hoax in thinking that the popular election of a body of our legislature allegedly dedicated to the interests of the Several States was a good idea.
TIME TO REPEAL THE 17TH AMENDMENT.
7
I think that the pretty face argument has some basis to it. Imagine Lincoln running today. he was considered homely at best and once replied to an accusation that he was "two-faced" that if he had another face he would not wear the one he had.
It is not the 17th amendment, as state legislatures and governors had a long history of sending scoundrels as well as statesmen to the Senate, as it is rivers of special interest money, the role of tv-appealing personalities, and the lack of choice fostered by the primary system. There is more, of course, but these are things I believe are largely to blame.
It is not the 17th amendment, as state legislatures and governors had a long history of sending scoundrels as well as statesmen to the Senate, as it is rivers of special interest money, the role of tv-appealing personalities, and the lack of choice fostered by the primary system. There is more, of course, but these are things I believe are largely to blame.
1
Both parties have failed us, the voters. Neither has the leadership to inspire participation and if we participate, few of us have confidence that the electoral system can be trusted to reflect the will of the majority. It is also true we are inundated by real news and fake news in various forms. The result is that many of us struggle to distinguish fact from fiction, or the probable from the improbable. That is the purpose of fake news: to trick voters into believing lies and voting against their own interests, and many politicians and the special interests they represent want to keep it that way. I doubt that american democracy has ever been more threatened than it is today.
5
How about a web-based, non-partisan perpetual plebiscite? My idea entails registered participants with voting credentials. By email, they would be invited regularly to respond yes or no to topical questions, posed in a simple manner e.g. Do you favor universal health care? Results could be streamed by target audience e.g. the Senators for Tx could be advised that x% of voters registered on the website in your district voted as follows ... . I think that direct, verifiable data would have a much greater impact than polling, depending of course on the level of participation. And people love to be heard.
1
Sorry, that would be a recipe for disaster almost as bad at the democracy that arose from the ashes of the French Revolution.
One of the key elements of the Rule of Law is the relative permanence of The Law to assure that The People have a predictable and expected outcome of ever instance where the law is to apply.
Should the law be subject to the instant whims of the majority, chaos would ensue, shortly followed by both anarchy and bloodshed.
Not a smart idea.
One of the key elements of the Rule of Law is the relative permanence of The Law to assure that The People have a predictable and expected outcome of ever instance where the law is to apply.
Should the law be subject to the instant whims of the majority, chaos would ensue, shortly followed by both anarchy and bloodshed.
Not a smart idea.
14
That assumes the electorate generally makes good, informed decisions, that the added decisions would not constitute an undue burden on an electorate that's already overworked, and that nobody would cheat to get more votes. I think that none of these are true.
If the first were true Trump wouldn't have made it past the primaries. People aren't stupid, but that doesn't mean they have the time to become well versed enough in what they're voting for to accurately weigh the pros and cons. That means they're being influenced by whoever gives the best sales pitch.
In the case of the second I can tell you that there's already the feeling that the primary process is too long, making politics be a never-ending affair for everyone is too much. That means the sensible moderates would most likely ignore it and the results would be dictated by the wingnuts of both parties.
There are ways to cheat on online polls, why would this be different?
If the first were true Trump wouldn't have made it past the primaries. People aren't stupid, but that doesn't mean they have the time to become well versed enough in what they're voting for to accurately weigh the pros and cons. That means they're being influenced by whoever gives the best sales pitch.
In the case of the second I can tell you that there's already the feeling that the primary process is too long, making politics be a never-ending affair for everyone is too much. That means the sensible moderates would most likely ignore it and the results would be dictated by the wingnuts of both parties.
There are ways to cheat on online polls, why would this be different?
Some of this is a bit true. Online petitions are meaningless. In fact, all petitions, unless they are signatures towards a referendum threshold, are meaningless. Form letters ditto. Rallies, marches, they make the participants feel good, but don't change much. Social media shares, comments, etc -- it's good to attempt to debunk certain things, and correct the record; otherwise it's just swimming in the algae.
But all of us, unless we're employed in the political sphere, are hobbyists. And, as the indivisible guide pointed out, showing up at town halls, and writing and calling your reps, and above all voting, are not only effective, they are your duty as a citizen.
But all of us, unless we're employed in the political sphere, are hobbyists. And, as the indivisible guide pointed out, showing up at town halls, and writing and calling your reps, and above all voting, are not only effective, they are your duty as a citizen.
22
I find this terribly insulting. I've done phone banks, organized a district for a presidential candidate, walked neighborhoods, called or written my representatives, donated to my party because I care so much about my country and my fellow Americans. I've also been an active volunteer in community organizations so I also walk the walk. Yes, I debate on FB and know I won't change any minds, but I also learn. I've been doing this for 45 years and don't plan to stop--I believe that makes me a committed and educated voter
87
BRAVO!! Keep on keeping on.
Don't be insulted JanerMP. He's not talking to you. In my opinion, we need more educated voters like you. Keep up the good work and try to pull a few more folks out of their easy chairs and into the voting booth!
Your response illustrates the other problem with contemporary discourse: you make it all about yourself and get "insulted." Is it possible that the writer was not talking about you?
People I know with new interest in politics are not hobbyists, but citizens alarmed by the erosion of our democratic principles. It is true, they are not professional political operatives, but none the less, motivated to be informed. The New York Times alone increased their subscriptions over 300,000 since the election. That is a movement toward electoral literacy.
Also, gerrymandering, citizens united, and voter suppression are not scapegoats. They are culprits designed to reduce accountability for those holding power. Concern should not be trivialized as a hobby.
Also, gerrymandering, citizens united, and voter suppression are not scapegoats. They are culprits designed to reduce accountability for those holding power. Concern should not be trivialized as a hobby.
89
It would be nice, Stephen, is many of those with "new interest in politics" actually haven't a clue as to what "our democratic principles" really are and are generally clueless about the institutions and processes that our Constitution establishes and ill-informed about how our democracy actually plays out.
It starts with the general lack of understanding that we are a REPUBLIC, not a democracy, and that the elections for our executive are done by votes of THE STATES. It has been this way since the Constitution was ratified in 1787
It continues with the failure to understand that it is THE STATES that set the election rules for the selection of delegates to the House of Representatives and that the districting process...the drawing of district lines...is a patently political process.
Finally, the interest crashes on the rocks when the cry goes up for not being fair or sensitive and insists on using RACE as a measure to assure that a minority achieves a majority in a particular state district as has occurred all over the nation to assure that blacks and Hispanics are adequately represented in the halls of Congress. If this was done to assure a white man's representation, it would be called RACISM, but nothing in the world could erase the fact that it would be nothing by gerrymandering either way.
The lack of knowledge of our political system is palpable; the degree of hypocrisy is inexcusable.
It starts with the general lack of understanding that we are a REPUBLIC, not a democracy, and that the elections for our executive are done by votes of THE STATES. It has been this way since the Constitution was ratified in 1787
It continues with the failure to understand that it is THE STATES that set the election rules for the selection of delegates to the House of Representatives and that the districting process...the drawing of district lines...is a patently political process.
Finally, the interest crashes on the rocks when the cry goes up for not being fair or sensitive and insists on using RACE as a measure to assure that a minority achieves a majority in a particular state district as has occurred all over the nation to assure that blacks and Hispanics are adequately represented in the halls of Congress. If this was done to assure a white man's representation, it would be called RACISM, but nothing in the world could erase the fact that it would be nothing by gerrymandering either way.
The lack of knowledge of our political system is palpable; the degree of hypocrisy is inexcusable.
3
I wonder.
First, have Professor Hersh's hobbyists "replaced" committed political activity with social media posting and petitioning, or were they (or their past counterparts) not engaged at all? Bowling Alone was published in 2000. Facebook was launched in 2004.
Second, extensive posting is not mutually exclusive of considerable "real life" organized political participation.
Third, at least in Wisconsin, there has been a surge in membership and participation in the Democratic Party, impelled primarily by Sanders supporters who recognize the need for sustained engagement if we are ever going to revitalize the Party, and begin the daunting task of overturning Republican control.
First, have Professor Hersh's hobbyists "replaced" committed political activity with social media posting and petitioning, or were they (or their past counterparts) not engaged at all? Bowling Alone was published in 2000. Facebook was launched in 2004.
Second, extensive posting is not mutually exclusive of considerable "real life" organized political participation.
Third, at least in Wisconsin, there has been a surge in membership and participation in the Democratic Party, impelled primarily by Sanders supporters who recognize the need for sustained engagement if we are ever going to revitalize the Party, and begin the daunting task of overturning Republican control.
8
I would fall into this writer's definition of a political hobbyist, because I work full time, have 2 children and have very little time to attend town hall meeting or run for office. I am extremely interested in our nation's future, have informed opinions and VOTE. Sorry we can't all spend all of our energy on politics. That doesn't make us bad participants in democracy. We contribute to our societies in other ways and participate in democracy when we can.
19
I agree with you completely, Ms. Asbury. You speak for millions of concerned Americans.
Mr. Hersh's assumptions are somewhat of an insult to The People who have seen it appropriate to vote in our elections.
It also smacks of the elitism that has been so soundly turned out of office since the elections of 2010, 2012, 2104, and 2016.
Mr. Hersh's assumptions are somewhat of an insult to The People who have seen it appropriate to vote in our elections.
It also smacks of the elitism that has been so soundly turned out of office since the elections of 2010, 2012, 2104, and 2016.
You vote. Period. (and thank you)
There's tremendous benefit to sharing information that you think will help enlighten others as to what's really going on, & to my reading posts by others which enlighten me. Combine this knowledge with hands-on activism &/or financial contributions, & you have the best of all worlds. Knowledge is truly power - & social media, for all its other ills, has opened that up for us.
3
My, my! Another smug academic telling us like it is. What are your solutions, O mighty thinker?
21
Interesting piece with plenty to debate, but I'd like to point out a fairly glaring misrepresentation:
"Donald Trump’s election was possible because both political parties mistakenly decided several decades ago to have binding primary elections determine presidential nominations. Rather than having party leaders vet candidates for competency and sanity, as most democracies do, our parties turned the nomination process into a reality show in which the closest things to vetting are a clap-o-meter and a tracking poll."
American political parties are NOT parties at all, and they bear no resemblance to parties in "most democracies" elsewhere in the world.
In Europe, parties have actual *members* that vote with respect to leadership (e.g., Britain's Labour party and the successful leadership campaigns of Jeremy Corbyn), and they pay dues. The Members of Parliament and other political officials of the party are directly answerable to the membership, that is, the average citizen with enough interest to become a member.
Parties in America have NO members to whom they answer (notwithstanding the stupid "membership surveys" they mail out each year that are thinly veiled polls and donation requests). That means the party is a collection of politicians in search of a base, not an actual manifestation of a collection of citizens seeking to express their political voice.
Hersh speaks of parties as though they've dropped the ball --- but the real problem is they are not parties at all.
"Donald Trump’s election was possible because both political parties mistakenly decided several decades ago to have binding primary elections determine presidential nominations. Rather than having party leaders vet candidates for competency and sanity, as most democracies do, our parties turned the nomination process into a reality show in which the closest things to vetting are a clap-o-meter and a tracking poll."
American political parties are NOT parties at all, and they bear no resemblance to parties in "most democracies" elsewhere in the world.
In Europe, parties have actual *members* that vote with respect to leadership (e.g., Britain's Labour party and the successful leadership campaigns of Jeremy Corbyn), and they pay dues. The Members of Parliament and other political officials of the party are directly answerable to the membership, that is, the average citizen with enough interest to become a member.
Parties in America have NO members to whom they answer (notwithstanding the stupid "membership surveys" they mail out each year that are thinly veiled polls and donation requests). That means the party is a collection of politicians in search of a base, not an actual manifestation of a collection of citizens seeking to express their political voice.
Hersh speaks of parties as though they've dropped the ball --- but the real problem is they are not parties at all.
379
Not exactly right.
Where primaries are "closed" voters must be affiliated to that party in order to vote in the primary. Many voters complained about closed Democratic primaries where they had not registered in time to vote for Bernie.
Party membership in the UK is actually a fraction of what it used to be. Yes, members have a vote on the leadership in accordance with party rules. But elected MPs answer to party leadership and there are penalties for defying the whips. Although ultimately they answer to their constituents, who can vote them out.
Where primaries are "closed" voters must be affiliated to that party in order to vote in the primary. Many voters complained about closed Democratic primaries where they had not registered in time to vote for Bernie.
Party membership in the UK is actually a fraction of what it used to be. Yes, members have a vote on the leadership in accordance with party rules. But elected MPs answer to party leadership and there are penalties for defying the whips. Although ultimately they answer to their constituents, who can vote them out.
1
Parties do answer to their elected precinct captains. The problem is that being a precinct captain is boring, slow, and hard -- as the article states. Thus, many of the available positions are left unfilled and a small minority of party members are left to elect party leaders.
1
You are right when you say that American parties are not parties at all, but in so being you precisely are making the author's point. Even American political parties were NOT always as they are now. They, in their own way, used to do exactly the kinds of vetting and validating functions discussed. The MODERN parties came into being in waves of 'reform' between about 1970 and 1974, largely in response to Vietnam-era turmoil. Far lower percentages of the delegate totals in both parties used to be decided by the primaries and caucuses than now. It clearly was not popular democracy, but it was a condition where some informed and seasoned judgment from people who day-to-day have related to and worked with candidates can weigh seriously their fitness to serve as President - where abilities to relate to and work with broad cross-sections is exactly a principal requirement for success in office. A case can be made that while the populist sentiments of what a country should value is the responsibility of the masses to frame, that the enactment needs to be left more to the professional political operatives, in the more pragmatic if not necessarily higher sense of that term.
Sometimes the truth hurts and it seems this article stung a little. I saw this hobbyism happening at the beginning of the last election and have been trying to convince people that hashtag campaigns, online petitions, and Facebook posts don't win elections. You really have to get off your couch and stop looking at your phone to change things.
Just as he author suggets, we democrats need to get more organized in the 'boring' aspects of winning elections. That means going to district party meetings, talking to your neighbors, and knocking on doors for candidates. I've spent several afternoons walking my town to get a mayor elected and it wasn't super flashy or exciting, but it had purpose, meaning, and it could actually make a difference. I have yet to see anything on social media or protest rally come close.
Just as he author suggets, we democrats need to get more organized in the 'boring' aspects of winning elections. That means going to district party meetings, talking to your neighbors, and knocking on doors for candidates. I've spent several afternoons walking my town to get a mayor elected and it wasn't super flashy or exciting, but it had purpose, meaning, and it could actually make a difference. I have yet to see anything on social media or protest rally come close.
4
You assume that these hobbyists are also the ones that don't vote in mid-term elections, dont engage in discussions with their neighbors or do anything other than pursue politics as a hobby. In fact, it is more likely the marginal voters who are not doing this, not the politically active "hobbyists." Secondly, the hobbyism you describe was much less common prior to the election of Trump, because Democrats were complacent after 8 years in the White House. My guess is that hobbyism will lead to greater participation over time, as currently evidenced by the millions of Democrats who have marched or protested since November and the surge of donations to candidates in house special elections.
5
Most of all political hobbyism has replaced real support for candidates: donating, getting commitments from friends and neighbors to vote for a candidate, going door-to-door, all those things candidates need. I attended a meeting last night for a local candidate. Eleven people showed up, but only two of us, offered tangible donations of time and energy and real plans. The others were there to talk and predict victory and give the candidate useless advice. Most disturbing was that only two of us knew basics, such as how to use voter lists, or even what the voter lists actually entailed. In fact, the candidate thought the list would tell us how people voted, literally who they voted for. A candidate, nominated by the party, who doesn't get the whole secret ballot thing? Unfortunately, it's the only game in town, and candidates can learn and a few volunteers can be trained and the rest avoided. Hard-core political work has been delegated to the professionals, and the locals no longer know how to get the job done. To make it worse, the professionals don't ask for or appreciate local help, except maybe for mindless and increasingly useless phone banking.
16
Nice shot. Missed the target.
We need new ways for millions of people to be engaged in the political process. Just complaining, showing up to vote and giving small contributions is far from enough. The billionaires, with money to spare and a deep concern to keep enriching themselves, are outracing the rest of us, making democracy into a sad, sick joke.
Millions of people could afford to give five dollars a week to help set our democracy on a better path. $20. per month by 1 million contributors would add up to almost 1,000,000,000.00 (1 billion) every election cycle.
Civic engagement is not taught in high schools nor in colleges. It should be part of the core effort at the college level. Instead, we are taught passivity by slurping down hours of cable news talk festivals. The political elite, indeed, want us to be passive except when they call forth contributions and volunteers for their specific candidate. They are actually afraid, scared to death, that an engaged citizenry will steal the game away from their hands, a game that pays many of them very well indeed.
We need to seize control of every aspect the law and Constitution allow. We need to believe in ourselves, our democracy and our future.
Every college student should be registered to vote. All of them, preferably right where they go to school. Our colleges, however, have abandoned moral principles as part of their core purpose. We need to wake up, America, because we are losing a precious gift.
We need new ways for millions of people to be engaged in the political process. Just complaining, showing up to vote and giving small contributions is far from enough. The billionaires, with money to spare and a deep concern to keep enriching themselves, are outracing the rest of us, making democracy into a sad, sick joke.
Millions of people could afford to give five dollars a week to help set our democracy on a better path. $20. per month by 1 million contributors would add up to almost 1,000,000,000.00 (1 billion) every election cycle.
Civic engagement is not taught in high schools nor in colleges. It should be part of the core effort at the college level. Instead, we are taught passivity by slurping down hours of cable news talk festivals. The political elite, indeed, want us to be passive except when they call forth contributions and volunteers for their specific candidate. They are actually afraid, scared to death, that an engaged citizenry will steal the game away from their hands, a game that pays many of them very well indeed.
We need to seize control of every aspect the law and Constitution allow. We need to believe in ourselves, our democracy and our future.
Every college student should be registered to vote. All of them, preferably right where they go to school. Our colleges, however, have abandoned moral principles as part of their core purpose. We need to wake up, America, because we are losing a precious gift.
14
What in intelligent and thoughtful article! It's so difficult to see the bubble that we're in. Many of us, those who are economically comfortable, are simple complacent and too comfortable. Plus I think the US is unique in that we are a country where each individual is encouraged to seek his or her individual happiness.
Another "elite" author telling the great unwashed mass of human deplorables how moronic we are and how much better off we all would be if we just left the politics to them. Thanks so much.
9
Classic victim blaming. People grow into the shoes (toys and tools) they are given. Some throw them down and make their own. The majority have always been controlled by an elite dependant on people fighting among themselves. This rhetoric is nothing more than the uniform-costume tailored to, 'We, the People'.
1
but who are the victims( and for what are they being blamed)?
it sounded more like a wake-up call to social mediums.
retweeting a meme of trump giving Angela Merkel the finger won't change anything.
people follow or friend people with whom they agree. voters of both parties just reinforce and become further entrenched in their views.
so who are the victims?
the supporters of the warmongering millionaire who lost the election?
or the supporters of the warmongering millionaire who won the election?
both candidates needed each other to make themselves less repugnant by holding up the other as a realistic illustration of corruption.
until the American people can look at the 2016 election and say, neither candidate deserved the office of the president, we will relive it every four years.
it sounded more like a wake-up call to social mediums.
retweeting a meme of trump giving Angela Merkel the finger won't change anything.
people follow or friend people with whom they agree. voters of both parties just reinforce and become further entrenched in their views.
so who are the victims?
the supporters of the warmongering millionaire who lost the election?
or the supporters of the warmongering millionaire who won the election?
both candidates needed each other to make themselves less repugnant by holding up the other as a realistic illustration of corruption.
until the American people can look at the 2016 election and say, neither candidate deserved the office of the president, we will relive it every four years.
2
Let me be the first. Neither major party Presidential candidate in 2016 deserved the office, or came anywhere close. And neither got my vote.
2
"In fact, it is not because of gerrymandering..."
I disagree. If elections were competitive, participation would increase dramatically. Gerrymandering stands in the way of that.
I disagree. If elections were competitive, participation would increase dramatically. Gerrymandering stands in the way of that.
70
Gerrymandering and redistricting have made substantial inroads to voter turnout. A recent twist is the move in some States and voting districts to require college students to vote in their home districts. For example, a student whose home is in PA or FL cannot vote in Mass. or VT; this reduces a large number of young voters at a time when we need them to be involved and active. I was more active in my twenties and early thirties than I am now as a senior. I cared more, held more passionate views and loyalties. If we lose that, or refuse to allow it to blossom, we lose the foundation of real democracy. Minority activism is a good sign, because many are young people who want to change things. We don't expect young people to have all the wisdom gained in years; we should be willing to accept their enthusiasm and active participation.
1
I disagree with your disagreement; gerrymandering only affects the House elections, which Democrats typically don't seem to care about, and the two states who proportion their Electoral College votes in the Presidential election. The irony of the latter is that it has often been offered by Democrats as a 'solution' to the Electoral College.
In a two party system, the method described here as "... our parties turned the nomination process into a reality show in which the closest things to vetting are a clap-o-meter and a tracking poll" was not successful at producing candidates that represent even the minority of the population that elected the President. Trump is clearly the most ill prepared and least mentally competent President that we have seen. Hillary, on the other hand couldn't get herself elected ahead of a boorish lout. Surely both parties could have assured themselves that they had viable candidates before launching into the farce that was the 2016 campaign and elections. Whether they could have done so in the smoke filled rooms characteristic of the Party hierarchy is certainly a valid question, however.
1
The democrats waste taxpayer money repeatedly. That is what you get because these union/academic people never accomplished anything on their own. They do not create jobs. They ruin states like NJ, Ct, Illinois. Actually they have ruined every blue state. They need new blood and their party is a total mess.
1
When one side of an election rests comfortably in the illusion that the only reason anyone wouldn't have voted THEIR way was because all those other people are racist, are scared of or hate all the carefully selected members of their own Society of Victims, or are too stupid to know the difference, we already know that they'll continue to lose.
It's like some religious sect that decides that anyone not already members of their group are so hopeless that they need not bother to bring them along - then they wonder why everyone died or went away a generation later.
The Left sees the right as hating all the Obama fringe sectors: the black, the Latino, the angry women, the gays, and so on. Meanwhile, the Right is too busy dodging bullets fired by progressives hate-trainees to actually see the Left.
That other line is the TV talking heads at the front of the New Victims Clubs.
It's like some religious sect that decides that anyone not already members of their group are so hopeless that they need not bother to bring them along - then they wonder why everyone died or went away a generation later.
The Left sees the right as hating all the Obama fringe sectors: the black, the Latino, the angry women, the gays, and so on. Meanwhile, the Right is too busy dodging bullets fired by progressives hate-trainees to actually see the Left.
That other line is the TV talking heads at the front of the New Victims Clubs.
2
How silly. Talking points from Rush....
5
The article's title is (intentionally?) a rephrasing of the famous observation attributed to Churchill that "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Sir Winston knew whereof he spoke.
5
"Participation" in the age of consumption is a bit of a tough fit.
People consume news; they consume sound bites; they consume photo ops; they consume the daily wave of their chosen media diet.
Where is the participation in that?
It is like asking that we have a participatory supermarket. Everyone simply expects to be able to go there and buy their preferred brands. Want toothpaste? We got an aisle full. Want dog food? We even have a freezer section for those of you really into it.
This analogy sums up the crisis. Politics should not be a supermarket, since it involves collective decision making -- what are *we* going to buy?
But the current mediascape asks us, what do you want to buy? And the media largely cooperates with this consumerist model.
And so our society increasingly looks like a dystopic supermarket, with people insisting their brand of washing detergent will save us, but this other brand secretly wants to make our whites less white.....
People consume news; they consume sound bites; they consume photo ops; they consume the daily wave of their chosen media diet.
Where is the participation in that?
It is like asking that we have a participatory supermarket. Everyone simply expects to be able to go there and buy their preferred brands. Want toothpaste? We got an aisle full. Want dog food? We even have a freezer section for those of you really into it.
This analogy sums up the crisis. Politics should not be a supermarket, since it involves collective decision making -- what are *we* going to buy?
But the current mediascape asks us, what do you want to buy? And the media largely cooperates with this consumerist model.
And so our society increasingly looks like a dystopic supermarket, with people insisting their brand of washing detergent will save us, but this other brand secretly wants to make our whites less white.....
5
What garbage this is. The gross generalizations and ridiculous characterizations on parade in this piece make it an embarrassment to read. For god sake nyt.
I volunteered to canvas during the 2016 election. Pretty much everyone slammed the door in my face; with or without some degree of courtesy. I got either "I'm voting for Hillary, thanks, bye", or borderline obscenities from Trump voters. I am never doing this gain.
2
Disagree. Main problem is those chosen / financed to run for office. What's the fun of winning an election in a so-called "participatory democracy" (Did Hersh actually invoke that mawkish myth without a hearty guffaw?) if you have to consult with the rabble conned into voting for you?
"Everybody knows the good guys lost."
"Everybody knows the good guys lost."
1
This reads like an effort from an op-ed hobbyist.
9
Uh, what?
2
Thanks for the empty article. We know we're spinning our wheels---we're not idiots. Observation without real insight is as useless as me writing this comment.
6
What's the alternative to hobbyism? Contact one's federal and/or state representatives and government beaurocrats if one has a beef? That goes absolutely nowhwere, unless one can pay them off with bribes for access/results. Politicians are not motivated by what's "good for the American people," They are motivated to raise money to keep their jobs first and foremost. That relegates us ordinary citizens to the spectator gallery. This op ed adds no value.
Do you think I like calling my congressman's office to beg him to take positions I know he would never consider? Do you think I like writing letters and sending post cards? Do you think I like the constant worry my daughter will loose her reproductive rights or that my cancer survivor mother will loose her healthcare? Do you think I like engaging in conversations with agitators who show up protests? Do I want to spend my saturdays canvassing to try to bring voters to the polls? Do I like a the discomfort I feel with family members who feel differently than I do when I refuse to hide my views any longer? The truth is, I don't like the fact I have to these things, but I recognize that keeping my mouth shut and being nice led us down a scary path. This is not a hobby for me, this is something I must do to be a good citizen and to try and protect my family and others in the only way I can. Sure, there are internet trolls who may be hobbyists, but they have been such for years. This new movement is one with both heart and despiration, but at least we are making an effort instead of simply sitting in an ivory tower.
20
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
H.L. Menchen
H.L. Menchen
I noticed a comment on the side of the article before I started reading, stating "This article is not helpful." Then as the author is establishing his argument, I read this in the fourth paragraph: "Democrats, more than Republicans, believe in mass participation as a core value and also believe it empowers their side." And from that point on I know the article is going to be ridiculous, and it was. I'm glad I'm not an undergraduate majoring in political science at Tufts. And since he's not a regular Opinion writer, one presumes he had far more time to really think about what he wanted to say, unlike the regular writers who do it for a living and sometimes have a tough time thinking about exactly what they want to fling at the wall. This author flung mud, and none of it stuck.
The GOP is far more homogenous, not just in skin color but in outlook. That's a serious handicap for the Democrats. As far as mass participation, let's just look at voting records, especially during midterms and in state and local contests. The GOP is far more effective in getting their base to the polls, and the point has been studied to death. This is why they're able to gerrymander in the first place. Much like Trump losing the popular vote, many folks don't know that far more ballots were cast for Democratic Congressmen then Republicans. But gerrymandering and 2 senators for every state made that moot, much like the Electoral College gifted the election to an ill-mannered baboon and buffoon.
The GOP is far more homogenous, not just in skin color but in outlook. That's a serious handicap for the Democrats. As far as mass participation, let's just look at voting records, especially during midterms and in state and local contests. The GOP is far more effective in getting their base to the polls, and the point has been studied to death. This is why they're able to gerrymander in the first place. Much like Trump losing the popular vote, many folks don't know that far more ballots were cast for Democratic Congressmen then Republicans. But gerrymandering and 2 senators for every state made that moot, much like the Electoral College gifted the election to an ill-mannered baboon and buffoon.
12
Re: "The GOP is far more homogenous, not just in skin color but in outlook."
Disagree.
70% of voters want a higher minimum wage. Are 70% of voters Democrats? Not even close. A lot of Republicans are in that group, along with a huge number of swing voters. More than 80% want to protect Social Security. Somewhere close to half that number are either Republicans or swing voters.
There are a lot of single issue Republican voters. For some, the issue is anti-abortion. For others, it is anti-tax. Yet others are pro-gun.
Democrats could be a big tent party around popular economic issues, and succeed big time. But their donors don't want that, and insist on banker centric candidates and policies. And their activists insist on strict anti-gun, no-borders, and pro-choice positions on these wedge issues. And then Democrats dismiss those who voted Obama twice based on populist economic rhetoric, then voted Trump based on the realization that Democrats are on the side of the wealthy, as just "deplorable".
Democratic leaders spew venom and disdain on those who want the party to move back to popular New Deal economic policies. They insist that economic populists have nowhere else to go, then act surprised when those voters take the first chance to go somewhere else - for even the faintest hope of some kind of change in economic policy.
Disagree.
70% of voters want a higher minimum wage. Are 70% of voters Democrats? Not even close. A lot of Republicans are in that group, along with a huge number of swing voters. More than 80% want to protect Social Security. Somewhere close to half that number are either Republicans or swing voters.
There are a lot of single issue Republican voters. For some, the issue is anti-abortion. For others, it is anti-tax. Yet others are pro-gun.
Democrats could be a big tent party around popular economic issues, and succeed big time. But their donors don't want that, and insist on banker centric candidates and policies. And their activists insist on strict anti-gun, no-borders, and pro-choice positions on these wedge issues. And then Democrats dismiss those who voted Obama twice based on populist economic rhetoric, then voted Trump based on the realization that Democrats are on the side of the wealthy, as just "deplorable".
Democratic leaders spew venom and disdain on those who want the party to move back to popular New Deal economic policies. They insist that economic populists have nowhere else to go, then act surprised when those voters take the first chance to go somewhere else - for even the faintest hope of some kind of change in economic policy.
3
Re: "The GOP is far more homogenous, not just in skin color but in outlook."
Disagree.
70% of voters want a higher minimum wage. Are 70% of voters Democrats? Not even close. A lot of Republicans are in that group, along with a huge number of swing voters. More than 80% want to protect Social Security. Somewhere close to half that number are either Republicans or swing voters.
There are a lot of single issue Republican voters. For some, the issue is anti-abortion. For others, it is anti-tax. Yet others are pro-gun.
Democrats could be a big tent party around popular economic issues, and succeed big time. But their donors don't want that, and insist on banker centric candidates and policies. And their activists insist on strict anti-gun, no-borders, and pro-choice positions on these wedge issues. And then they pretend that those who voted Obama twice based on populist economic rhetoric, then voted Trump based on the realization that Democrats are on the side of the wealthy, are just racists. Democratic leaders spew venom and disdain on those who want the party to move back to popular New Deal economic policies. They insist that economic populists have nowhere else to go, then act surprised when those voters take the first chance to go somewhere else - for even the faintest hope of some kind of change in economic policy.
Disagree.
70% of voters want a higher minimum wage. Are 70% of voters Democrats? Not even close. A lot of Republicans are in that group, along with a huge number of swing voters. More than 80% want to protect Social Security. Somewhere close to half that number are either Republicans or swing voters.
There are a lot of single issue Republican voters. For some, the issue is anti-abortion. For others, it is anti-tax. Yet others are pro-gun.
Democrats could be a big tent party around popular economic issues, and succeed big time. But their donors don't want that, and insist on banker centric candidates and policies. And their activists insist on strict anti-gun, no-borders, and pro-choice positions on these wedge issues. And then they pretend that those who voted Obama twice based on populist economic rhetoric, then voted Trump based on the realization that Democrats are on the side of the wealthy, are just racists. Democratic leaders spew venom and disdain on those who want the party to move back to popular New Deal economic policies. They insist that economic populists have nowhere else to go, then act surprised when those voters take the first chance to go somewhere else - for even the faintest hope of some kind of change in economic policy.
121
When people live in districts that are overwhelmingly controlled by a party, such as Albany NY and the Democrats, you don't get much participation on the local Congressional votes by the opposition because they feel their vote is meaningless. But the Electoral College and the 2 Senator per state rules have been in existence for a long, long time and just because you lost the election under rules that everyone knew were in existence is not a reason to change the rules. Just win.
4
After the election, I'm ashamed to admit that I had many similar thoughts about hobbyist political hacks. I spent the last year completely immersed in the campaign, and it felt like everyone got on my page on November 9. Where were they when we needed more volunteers? How many of them even paid attention to the campaign before October?
But the thing is, that's not their job. I've decided it's mine, but there's no reason they need to spend every moment of their lives pouring over politics when they could be contributing to society in other ways. We have a representative government so that the rest of the country can get on with their lives.
Of course, the flip side of that is that people still have a duty to vote and be relatively informed, and too many people seem to take this hard-fought right for granted. There are structural problems we need to change, but I completely agree that getting rid of gerrymandering or Citizens United isn't going to solve the whole problem. At the end of the day, people need to show up in a way they haven't been.
But if that's your goal, why go after the hobbyists? They're showing up, finally. They're staying informed. They're turning out to vote. They're doing everything that experts are telling them to do. And maybe it'll fizzle out in a year, but for now - it's a pretty good start.
But the thing is, that's not their job. I've decided it's mine, but there's no reason they need to spend every moment of their lives pouring over politics when they could be contributing to society in other ways. We have a representative government so that the rest of the country can get on with their lives.
Of course, the flip side of that is that people still have a duty to vote and be relatively informed, and too many people seem to take this hard-fought right for granted. There are structural problems we need to change, but I completely agree that getting rid of gerrymandering or Citizens United isn't going to solve the whole problem. At the end of the day, people need to show up in a way they haven't been.
But if that's your goal, why go after the hobbyists? They're showing up, finally. They're staying informed. They're turning out to vote. They're doing everything that experts are telling them to do. And maybe it'll fizzle out in a year, but for now - it's a pretty good start.
7
When the author described liberals as "watching cable news, and refreshing Twitter and Facebook feeds" I knew I should stop reading. Liberals I know get their info from OTHER sources: NPR, Huffington Post, some NYT/WaPo, and Motherjones or ThinkProgress. Cable news, Facebook and Twitter are much farther down the list of "sources" for liberals I know. Prof. Hersh not knowing the habits of those she is critcizing tells me she is not qualified to make any of her other judgements about "liberals" either.
8
Thank you. You are so correct about this.
1
I would recommend adding Dean Baker to your list of sources. Understandable economic debunking and analysis.
A lot of so-called liberal or neutral news sources, take a lot of widely spread economic misinformation as fact - just as do conservative sources.
Reading Dean Baker is very worthwhile, for questioning "accepted wisdom", which in fact is just widely believed nonsense.
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/
A lot of so-called liberal or neutral news sources, take a lot of widely spread economic misinformation as fact - just as do conservative sources.
Reading Dean Baker is very worthwhile, for questioning "accepted wisdom", which in fact is just widely believed nonsense.
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/
3
We ordinary people have sure enough failed.
One of our failings is not asking the following question: Why do we taxpayers keep on paying Trump a presidential salary? It's pretty obvious by now that he spends his time watching cable TV--mostly Fox News--tweeting insults disgorged from the depths of his Id, signing executive orders that cannot pass legal muster, attending ceremonial functions celebrating GOP non-victories, and chatting with foreign dignitaries, many of whom are appalled by his demeanor.
Of course there is all that time he spends not filling government posts; attending re-election campaign rallies and fund raisers; getting advice from that amateur expert on all matters political, economic, and diplomatic, Mr. J. Kushner; lying to the public and distracting them from what is actually going on; consulting with lawyers involved with his business and investigatory problems; giving advice to his two sons who are charged with expanding the family business interests; anticipating his next weekend's golfing getaway; and pitting the members of his White House staff against one another.
I guess if he would just put some time aside to actually read the U.S. Constitution and reflect on its directives concerning how a president fits into our nation's political scheme of things, he would have a pretty full day after all.
I still can't help thinking that we taxpayers are not getting our money's worth.
One of our failings is not asking the following question: Why do we taxpayers keep on paying Trump a presidential salary? It's pretty obvious by now that he spends his time watching cable TV--mostly Fox News--tweeting insults disgorged from the depths of his Id, signing executive orders that cannot pass legal muster, attending ceremonial functions celebrating GOP non-victories, and chatting with foreign dignitaries, many of whom are appalled by his demeanor.
Of course there is all that time he spends not filling government posts; attending re-election campaign rallies and fund raisers; getting advice from that amateur expert on all matters political, economic, and diplomatic, Mr. J. Kushner; lying to the public and distracting them from what is actually going on; consulting with lawyers involved with his business and investigatory problems; giving advice to his two sons who are charged with expanding the family business interests; anticipating his next weekend's golfing getaway; and pitting the members of his White House staff against one another.
I guess if he would just put some time aside to actually read the U.S. Constitution and reflect on its directives concerning how a president fits into our nation's political scheme of things, he would have a pretty full day after all.
I still can't help thinking that we taxpayers are not getting our money's worth.
3
Reading this article I was hoping for a renewed sense of optimism in american politics and a way forward out of this mess. Instead I feel America is doomed.
2
So, Eitan D. Hersh believes that "having party leaders vet candidates" is a *good* thing.
That says it all.
The 1% have had veto power over candidates for decades, which is why we have an economy which no longer works for the majority.
Voters in MI, PA, and WI are sick of both parties enacting policies which make the economy better for the 1% at the expense of everyone else.
Trump was the most disliked candidate in history. But voters in these states still preferred any chance to vote against the economic status quo, against a candidate guaranteed to continue that status quo.
Bernie Sanders proved that a candidate doesn't need to take money from the 1%, to fund a successful campaign. Eitan D. Hersh would like us to believe that politics as usual is the way to effect change, and that it is smart to keep voting for the lesser of two evils, even though that has proven to lead to ever greater inequality over the past several decades. We have two parties with nearly identical economic policies, at odds with the interests of the 99%. Establishment Democrats pretend to want to help workers, but their feigned fecklessness is betrayed by the approval of their donors.
Not buying it.
That says it all.
The 1% have had veto power over candidates for decades, which is why we have an economy which no longer works for the majority.
Voters in MI, PA, and WI are sick of both parties enacting policies which make the economy better for the 1% at the expense of everyone else.
Trump was the most disliked candidate in history. But voters in these states still preferred any chance to vote against the economic status quo, against a candidate guaranteed to continue that status quo.
Bernie Sanders proved that a candidate doesn't need to take money from the 1%, to fund a successful campaign. Eitan D. Hersh would like us to believe that politics as usual is the way to effect change, and that it is smart to keep voting for the lesser of two evils, even though that has proven to lead to ever greater inequality over the past several decades. We have two parties with nearly identical economic policies, at odds with the interests of the 99%. Establishment Democrats pretend to want to help workers, but their feigned fecklessness is betrayed by the approval of their donors.
Not buying it.
2
This is just another restatement of the same heads-or-tails argument, or at least one side of it: there's no problem with the system itself, it's the fact that it gets applied to human beings that guarantees terrible results.
Mr. Hersh's specifics bemoaning the evil Web are of course just the latest media nonsense, explaining nothing about the US electorate's random oscillations between political poles. As far as I can see, the motion of a pendulum would perfectly explain American voting for the White House over the past 75 years. But Hersh's dismissal of gerrymandering as a factor in the wholesale corruption of Congress is irresponsible.
Mr. Hersh's specifics bemoaning the evil Web are of course just the latest media nonsense, explaining nothing about the US electorate's random oscillations between political poles. As far as I can see, the motion of a pendulum would perfectly explain American voting for the White House over the past 75 years. But Hersh's dismissal of gerrymandering as a factor in the wholesale corruption of Congress is irresponsible.
2
Reading this article I was hoping for a renewed sense of optimism in american politics and a way forward out of this mess. Instead I feel America is doomed.
Shorter version: get off your " butt" and vote. Everything else is just noise.
Seriously.
Seriously.
4
Mr. Hersh laments not "having party leaders vet candidates".
That says it all.
The 1% have had veto power over candidates for decades, which is why we have an economy which no longer works for the majority.
Voters in MI, PA, and WI are sick of both parties enacting policies which make the economy better for the 1% at the expense of everyone else.
Trump was the most disliked candidate in history. But voters in these states still preferred any chance to vote against the economic status quo, against a candidate guaranteed to continue that status quo.
Bernie Sanders proved that a candidate doesn't need to take money from the 1%, to fund a successful campaign. Donors would like us to believe that politics as usual is the way to effect change, and that it is smart to keep voting for the lesser of two evils, even though that has proven to lead to ever greater inequality over the past several decades. We have two parties with nearly identical economic policies, at odds with the interests of the 99%. Establishment Democrats pretend to want to help workers, but their feigned fecklessness is betrayed by the approval of their donors.
Not buying it.
That says it all.
The 1% have had veto power over candidates for decades, which is why we have an economy which no longer works for the majority.
Voters in MI, PA, and WI are sick of both parties enacting policies which make the economy better for the 1% at the expense of everyone else.
Trump was the most disliked candidate in history. But voters in these states still preferred any chance to vote against the economic status quo, against a candidate guaranteed to continue that status quo.
Bernie Sanders proved that a candidate doesn't need to take money from the 1%, to fund a successful campaign. Donors would like us to believe that politics as usual is the way to effect change, and that it is smart to keep voting for the lesser of two evils, even though that has proven to lead to ever greater inequality over the past several decades. We have two parties with nearly identical economic policies, at odds with the interests of the 99%. Establishment Democrats pretend to want to help workers, but their feigned fecklessness is betrayed by the approval of their donors.
Not buying it.
4
I voted for Bernie in the primary, but what did Bernie actually win? The economic deck, campaign finance and media, if firmly stacked in favor of the economic status quo. If that doesn't change, Trump is the least of our worries.
BTW: Until Dick Cheney's disdain for the Constitution started me thinking, I'd always voted Republican.
BTW: Until Dick Cheney's disdain for the Constitution started me thinking, I'd always voted Republican.
1
...it is not because of gerrymandering, Citizens United, cable news or any of the other common scapegoats that our system is broken, but because of us: ordinary people who are doing politics the wrong way.
What if the current hobbyism is a result of the aforementioned. heeemandering disenfranchises and makes people both angry and hopeless. Citizens United has brought huge amounts of money into the election process, with zero accountability. Wealth disparities have created the billionaire philanthropist who is using untaxed wealth to make public policy. The reality is that our Democracy has failed us because it has become undemocratic. And that has given rise to the Demaguogery of the Tweeter. I reject the notion of hobbyism - look to the source. Make America Great Again by finding leaders that bind us together, who understand our values and can communicate why it is important that we agree on those values even if we don't always agree on policies. Can we all agree that we have an obligation as a society to take care of the most vulnerable among us? That's a starting point. Build policy from that agreement on values. Right now, I do not see common agreement because Washington is run based on polls and election concerns, rather than values. I miss Frank Capra and Jimmy Stewart. Bring them back!
What if the current hobbyism is a result of the aforementioned. heeemandering disenfranchises and makes people both angry and hopeless. Citizens United has brought huge amounts of money into the election process, with zero accountability. Wealth disparities have created the billionaire philanthropist who is using untaxed wealth to make public policy. The reality is that our Democracy has failed us because it has become undemocratic. And that has given rise to the Demaguogery of the Tweeter. I reject the notion of hobbyism - look to the source. Make America Great Again by finding leaders that bind us together, who understand our values and can communicate why it is important that we agree on those values even if we don't always agree on policies. Can we all agree that we have an obligation as a society to take care of the most vulnerable among us? That's a starting point. Build policy from that agreement on values. Right now, I do not see common agreement because Washington is run based on polls and election concerns, rather than values. I miss Frank Capra and Jimmy Stewart. Bring them back!
6
Democracy has always been untidy and less savory than its most ardent advocates have pretended it to be. The Internet, with its unlimited opportunities for political advocacy and argumentation is the functional equivalent of the endless food court at the universal mall. It caters to every taste, and every preference, without regard to consequences. You don't have to even be there They deliver, 24/7. And you can phone it in. You don't have to meet your neighbors, and you don't have to talk to anyone else. Where I live, here in California, a substantial majority of the electorate votes by mail. I do, but as a lawyer who much earlier in my professional career worked with the State Legislature, I read everything, and I pay close attention to the details and the cogent of the ballot arguments. I know I'm within a distinct minority, but that's just me.
California returns the favor by respecting its voters and by making a leap of faith that voters really do care about public policy and their consequences.
But we all can do significantly better. Public meetings here are well attended, but public education and discussion in the civics is needed to counter the personality-driven populism we see in our nation's capital. Party activists and diners might not like it, but that's what we need.
California returns the favor by respecting its voters and by making a leap of faith that voters really do care about public policy and their consequences.
But we all can do significantly better. Public meetings here are well attended, but public education and discussion in the civics is needed to counter the personality-driven populism we see in our nation's capital. Party activists and diners might not like it, but that's what we need.
1
The recipe for healthy human development based on research: Caring relationships, skill building, clear and high expectations, meaningful participation and community involvement.
So, DNC, I propose you set up clear and high expectations for people who want to join the democratic party and require all democrats volunteer for prosocial organizations - not campaigning or politics, just community stuff, all the things Democrats care about. Clean up stuff, help in schools, hospitals, nursing homes, gosh, think of all the things we could do. Run each DNC office like a volunteer center. Hold weekly critical reflection support groups where people learn to listen, think and reflect on their service experiences - and find a sense of belonging. Stop trying to win and just focus on serving. Instead of letting people just decide they want to run, nominate them. Invite them to speak, hold elections constantly, using mail ballots. Start municipally, then county, then state, regional on the the national convention where those folks all figure out who will do what, from pres, to sec of state, to all kinds of important positions....
So, DNC, I propose you set up clear and high expectations for people who want to join the democratic party and require all democrats volunteer for prosocial organizations - not campaigning or politics, just community stuff, all the things Democrats care about. Clean up stuff, help in schools, hospitals, nursing homes, gosh, think of all the things we could do. Run each DNC office like a volunteer center. Hold weekly critical reflection support groups where people learn to listen, think and reflect on their service experiences - and find a sense of belonging. Stop trying to win and just focus on serving. Instead of letting people just decide they want to run, nominate them. Invite them to speak, hold elections constantly, using mail ballots. Start municipally, then county, then state, regional on the the national convention where those folks all figure out who will do what, from pres, to sec of state, to all kinds of important positions....
6
For myself (and I suspect many Americans) after the seemingly never-ending obligations of work (which have grown exponentially since the invention of cell phones and email), significant others, family, friends, and a few hours of sleep, many simply do not have the literal time (much less the energy) to dedicate to traditional civic engagement. However, we do have time to comment on an NYT article while waiting for the bus or drinking our morning coffee. Thus, the choice for many Americans isn't between "political hobbyism" and more rigorous forms of participation, but between "political hobbyism" and no participation at all.
Moreover, most Americans (myself included) live in solidly blue or red states and congressional districts. Therefore, in the few hours we have leftover for volunteering, it is much more rational and rewarding to do something with a tangible impact (e.g., pro bono professional work, cleaning a neighborhood park, coaching youth sports) rather than spending hours crafting a thoughtful letter to my elected representatives, who won't read it and in return have an intern mail a form letter sent to thousands of other constituents several months later.
There are many who should be taken to task for the lackluster recent performance of the Democratic party, but overworked Americans engaging in "poiltical hobbyism" are not among them .
Moreover, most Americans (myself included) live in solidly blue or red states and congressional districts. Therefore, in the few hours we have leftover for volunteering, it is much more rational and rewarding to do something with a tangible impact (e.g., pro bono professional work, cleaning a neighborhood park, coaching youth sports) rather than spending hours crafting a thoughtful letter to my elected representatives, who won't read it and in return have an intern mail a form letter sent to thousands of other constituents several months later.
There are many who should be taken to task for the lackluster recent performance of the Democratic party, but overworked Americans engaging in "poiltical hobbyism" are not among them .
10
The author rightly acknowledges the superficial involvement of many citizens in our democracy, however, he incorrectly diagnosis the genesis of this symptom. Normal citizens has been intentionally and systematically excluded from engaging meaningfully in our political process. Special interests have leveraged the bureaucracy of this country's political parties to further their own aims and abstract voters from being able to directly pursue their individual interests. Blaming the citizenry of this country for superficially engaging in our democracy is at best comically ignorant but more likely intentionally disingenuous.
Additionally, politics as entertainment, including the rise in vitriol, has been actively marketed to voters both to sell political brands and as a business model in and of itself. That voters engage with this material can hardly be attributed to any failing on their part, when an enormous amount of energy has been spent by both political parties, elements of the media, and special interests on selling it to them.
Additionally, politics as entertainment, including the rise in vitriol, has been actively marketed to voters both to sell political brands and as a business model in and of itself. That voters engage with this material can hardly be attributed to any failing on their part, when an enormous amount of energy has been spent by both political parties, elements of the media, and special interests on selling it to them.
6
What do you suggest is the solution? I posted an idea...
While there is some food for thought here, this is a bit scathing about a lot of people who really are working on solutions. That said, there's some protesting in this section that looks a bit like ->
If the shoe fits ...
There is a kind of unintended consequence of our addiction to social media and electronic devices. The author rightly points out the visceral need that leads to Black Lives Matter protests is not matched by joining discussion boards and finding people who agree with us.
My biggest concern has always been climate, and action is badly needed, not in the form of more science, but fostering more curiosity amongst the incurious. Only then will the wholesale shift of the market to better choices occur, and it is getting late.
Unfortunately, real organization has been ceded to the opposition, the Kochtopus and their ilk, as money and power are ever more concentrated in the hands of a 1984-like entity. Even if a corporation wants to act on behalf of the whole community, there will be shareholder takeovers in favor of those who heed the bottom line (e.g., GE).
The empty forms around us, deregulation sold as freedom rather than dismantling long-held social gains, automation of jobs, replacement of neighborhood stores with big box stores and Amazon-like behemoths, all this contributes to us becoming, as I am here, a consumer of the ability to spread a screen of pixels over my powerlessness and feel like I am "doing" something.
It's better to talk face to face.
If the shoe fits ...
There is a kind of unintended consequence of our addiction to social media and electronic devices. The author rightly points out the visceral need that leads to Black Lives Matter protests is not matched by joining discussion boards and finding people who agree with us.
My biggest concern has always been climate, and action is badly needed, not in the form of more science, but fostering more curiosity amongst the incurious. Only then will the wholesale shift of the market to better choices occur, and it is getting late.
Unfortunately, real organization has been ceded to the opposition, the Kochtopus and their ilk, as money and power are ever more concentrated in the hands of a 1984-like entity. Even if a corporation wants to act on behalf of the whole community, there will be shareholder takeovers in favor of those who heed the bottom line (e.g., GE).
The empty forms around us, deregulation sold as freedom rather than dismantling long-held social gains, automation of jobs, replacement of neighborhood stores with big box stores and Amazon-like behemoths, all this contributes to us becoming, as I am here, a consumer of the ability to spread a screen of pixels over my powerlessness and feel like I am "doing" something.
It's better to talk face to face.
6
Please heed this "outside" view: As I became a naturalized citizen in my early 30's, I had plenty of time to choose a political party on my own. While I definitely lean Democrat, I couldn't bring myself to choose them, and I chose to be Independent. Currently, the Democratic party keeps reminding me that I made the right decision.
For me, this piece is a reminder that the two-party system is broken. There is no party that truly represents my views, and the views of many of the people that are commenting here.
Many of the people that are part of the "hobbyist" movement need a party to hold on to, if we are truly to beat the GOP in the midterms and beyond. The Democrats are not cutting it in their current form. Yes, there are good people in their ranks, but also too many hacks. I have the persistent feeling that I have to "settle" for the Democrats, cause the alternative is unthinkable.
As a pragmatist, I was not an immediate Bernie supporter. But in hindsight, he definitely had a better message, and the Democrats (and myself, by the way) should have paid heed to that. Maybe the Democrats should be the center-right party, and a new, truly liberal party should emerge. Is that asking too much?
For me, this piece is a reminder that the two-party system is broken. There is no party that truly represents my views, and the views of many of the people that are commenting here.
Many of the people that are part of the "hobbyist" movement need a party to hold on to, if we are truly to beat the GOP in the midterms and beyond. The Democrats are not cutting it in their current form. Yes, there are good people in their ranks, but also too many hacks. I have the persistent feeling that I have to "settle" for the Democrats, cause the alternative is unthinkable.
As a pragmatist, I was not an immediate Bernie supporter. But in hindsight, he definitely had a better message, and the Democrats (and myself, by the way) should have paid heed to that. Maybe the Democrats should be the center-right party, and a new, truly liberal party should emerge. Is that asking too much?
10
With respect, your choice not to choose the Democratic Party is not the right decision, especially if your own politics are more sympathetic to the Democratic side than the Republican side. At the risk of sounding flippant, you have to remember the truism: "no matter whom you vote for, the government always gets in." Or, to flip the quote, "no matter whom you don't vote for, the government always gets in". The Democrats are flawed, but they are the only bulwark against the vicious sociopathy that is the Republican Party now, who are well beyond flawed to despicably appalling and unfit to govern at all. Simply to preserve sanity, if your politics lean Democratic, then you vote Democratic. Until the world is more like your idealized image of it, you have to deal with the world as it is now, and work to get it closer to how you want it. Voting for the party that more closely aligns with those interests is one such means. (And there is no guarantee that Bernie would have done better. He was never subjected to the continual hate barrage that Hillary has endured for decades. Look up Kurt Eichenwald's Newsweek commentary for a sampling of the dirt that Republicans had on Bernie, and would have unleashed had Bernie been the nominee.)
Independents who might have voted Democratic helped Trump win the election. If you can't find something to support in either major political Party, you might as well not vote. Independent candidates do not win elections; they do draw votes from major Party candidates, so in a feckless way they influence elections. They get to make a "statement"; they don't get to elect a reasonable choice to the White House.
When I attended law school in the late 70s the subject of Contracts was a year-long class. One-third of your grade was based on a three-or four-hour essay exam at the end of the first semester, and two-thirds on a test at the end of the year.
Our professor, on next seeing us at the beginning of the second semester--after the grades for the first semester test were published--looked upon us for a few minutes, saying nothing. Then he stood, went to the blackboard and wrote: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
Our professor, on next seeing us at the beginning of the second semester--after the grades for the first semester test were published--looked upon us for a few minutes, saying nothing. Then he stood, went to the blackboard and wrote: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
4
I fail to see how are ballot initiatives are somehow emblematic of hobbyist politics. How is directly expressing ones view in the voting booth "hobbyist". From climate change to health care, LGBT rights, and legal marijuana, the average voter has been proved to be much more reasonable than our elected representatives.
2
Mr. Hersh would have us see a symptom as a cause and would have us blame those who are in fact well-meaning victims. He would do better to uncover the structural problems that prevent sustained political activism. Instead he dismisses structural problems that erode coordinated action, like Citizen United, gerrymandering and cable news as superficial. And makes no mention of the deterioration of voting rights, the decline of labor unions, alternative media, progressive churches and so forth. Then in typical right-wing fashion he conjures up allegedly self-indulgent liberal "elites" ("hobbyists") and blames their lack of the civic commitment for the failure of participation, when the right has done everything it could to undermine the ground necessary to sustain that civic commitment.
17
None of what you list prevents Dems from getting off their butts and voting.
A) Australia came up with the solution: mandatory voting. When all citizens have to be polled, politicians move toward consensus positions and away from the hobbyists who are intrinsically thrill seekers, extremists.
B) I'm suspicious of the author's self-proclaimed gift to tell us which interest groups are or are not hobbyists. Not buying that.
B) I'm suspicious of the author's self-proclaimed gift to tell us which interest groups are or are not hobbyists. Not buying that.
8
The anti-democratic mechanism of mandatory voting is no more an answer to anything than the anti-democratic mechanisms of gerrymandering and the Electoral College.
1
I understand your point, but compulsory voting changes the whole political atmosphere:
from a BBC report:
Rohan Wenn, spokesperson for the non-partisan political advocacy group Get Up!, says the system protects the rights of marginalised groups.
"If you look at the international experience, in non-compulsory voting systems, the people who don't vote are the poor and disenfranchised and those are exactly the people we think should be voting."
from a BBC report:
Rohan Wenn, spokesperson for the non-partisan political advocacy group Get Up!, says the system protects the rights of marginalised groups.
"If you look at the international experience, in non-compulsory voting systems, the people who don't vote are the poor and disenfranchised and those are exactly the people we think should be voting."
1
I live in Australia, and love mandatory voting! Even if you scrawl "none of the above" on your ballot, you have to show up. It's one of the duties of citizenship.
2
Interesting but my favorite take on the last election is TV critic Emily Nussbaum: How Jokes Won the Election. I'm too old for linking. It isn't just some people not voting, in my opinion. The problem is the racism and other threats to the status quo.
1
If you use Facebook and other such social media then there is a file with all relevant information about you that is available to the ‘consultants’ who advise those in the political contest and you will be ‘handled’ in the election period. Obama’s machine did this effectively well first, but now it is S.O.P. for all politicians who can afford it.
This Political Scientist author offers no solutions as to how the game could be demonetized so that ‘real people’ might have a chance to make their positions available to informed citizens. The days of the League of Women Voters running the debates and Public Financing of elections have passed. So have a good time playing the game but don’t expect the elected to represent you unless you are already powerful.
This Political Scientist author offers no solutions as to how the game could be demonetized so that ‘real people’ might have a chance to make their positions available to informed citizens. The days of the League of Women Voters running the debates and Public Financing of elections have passed. So have a good time playing the game but don’t expect the elected to represent you unless you are already powerful.
Political hobbyism is nothing new, unfortunately. I've called it the Free Tibet syndrome for several decades. All those politically substantial people who think activism is as simple as sending some money to a place that claims to have Tibetians' interests at hand, and in return get a "Free Tibet" bumper sticker for their car. A totally worthless and meaningless political act, but politics in the minds of too many progressives. The inability to understand effectiveness of action is what kills our politics in the age of the internet. Real involvement takes effort and time, not clicking a keyboard or thumbing a screen. It takes more than reading the latest Tweet. It isn't, in other words, some spare-time activity we do to amuse our minds. It's substantial work.
Another thing that feeds this is the growing difficulty of getting good information. Too many communities no longer have a solid news source for local and state information, so the chatter of Twitter and Facebook fills the information void, to our great misunderstanding of reality.
Another thing that feeds this is the growing difficulty of getting good information. Too many communities no longer have a solid news source for local and state information, so the chatter of Twitter and Facebook fills the information void, to our great misunderstanding of reality.
2
Today's hobbyism is perhaps tomorrows revolution.
[But duty as an ideal (or theory) is quite different than duty in practice, Professor. Might I suggest the Bhagavad Gita? Even Krishna might balk at your use of changing diapers, and may in fact say that while the act itself is disliked, the duty ideal is quite a joyful one, neh? And who says guilt is not felt by the non-voter? There are likely some feeling guilty today for having voted for Trump, or one can at least hope so. Interesting read, though, Professor.]
[But duty as an ideal (or theory) is quite different than duty in practice, Professor. Might I suggest the Bhagavad Gita? Even Krishna might balk at your use of changing diapers, and may in fact say that while the act itself is disliked, the duty ideal is quite a joyful one, neh? And who says guilt is not felt by the non-voter? There are likely some feeling guilty today for having voted for Trump, or one can at least hope so. Interesting read, though, Professor.]
Talking about and interest in comes before action.
What is the good alternative to Prof. Hersh's "hobbyism"? Apathy? Robo-thinking and voting? Flipping a coin before entering the voting booth? This is what hobbyism may or may not be replacing. I don't know, but then, neither does Prof. Hersh.
Here's my solution: Fine citizens who fail to vote. (It's done all over the world and it works.) When voting is a citizen responsibility backed by monetary penalties, up goes participation, up goes the level of conversation, up goes pressure on legislatures to make it easier to vote (online, 24 hour and Sunday voting). Many hobbyists will become committed amateurs. It works for the NRA.
Here's my solution: Fine citizens who fail to vote. (It's done all over the world and it works.) When voting is a citizen responsibility backed by monetary penalties, up goes participation, up goes the level of conversation, up goes pressure on legislatures to make it easier to vote (online, 24 hour and Sunday voting). Many hobbyists will become committed amateurs. It works for the NRA.
1
Totalitarian measures such as compulsory voting always "work" for some people in some sense. It is the law in some 30 countries, but not enforced in more than half of them; and at least 10 countries which had compulsory voting have abandoned it. It's a solution to nothing.
1
Prof. Hersh's alternative to "hobbyism" is participation — local organizing, attending community or local party meetings, volunteering for local candidates or non-profits.
Actually, he doesn't present it so much as an alternative to hobbyism as it is the necessary piece that transforms hobbyism into something more meaningful: "Political hobbyism might not be so bad if it complemented mundane but important forms of participation. The problem is that hobbyism is replacing other forms of participation..."
Actually, he doesn't present it so much as an alternative to hobbyism as it is the necessary piece that transforms hobbyism into something more meaningful: "Political hobbyism might not be so bad if it complemented mundane but important forms of participation. The problem is that hobbyism is replacing other forms of participation..."
2
It's only "totalitarian" if it's instituted by dictators outside of a representative democratic framework. It's working around the world. I can't find the 10 countries that you mention have abandoned it. Probably due to civil wars, revolutions or power grabs by dictators in a few cases, none recently.
Professor Hersh makes two common and related mistakes in this article. First, he fails to define what politics itself—in an unqualified sense, to use Aristotle's approach—means and requires. Without such a definition, we are unable to assess Hersh's reasons for bemoaning the "hobbyism" of modern modes of participatory democracy. For instance, when he says, "Now it is the Facebooker who argues with friends of friends he does not know," I happen to think this is more authentically political than voting and grassroots lobbying. Certainly, thinkers from the ancient Greeks to Arendt believed that politics becomes manifest not so much in policy outcomes but in the gregarious political intercourse among men. Thus, Arendt's observation that the ancient polis was "the most talkative of all bodies politic."
Second, Hersh implies that the national stage is where American politics among the citizenry needs to become more robust. This is a pipe dream, not only because of the natural psychological limitations it imposes on the individual, but also because progressive politics—nationalization, bureaucratization—have turned the national field of politics into an unnavigable matrix in which over two million unelected civil servants now have the power to create tens of thousands of "regulations" independently of the people's elected representatives. Only a restoration of federal-republicanism (another pipe dream, regrettably) could again make national politics available to the common man.
Second, Hersh implies that the national stage is where American politics among the citizenry needs to become more robust. This is a pipe dream, not only because of the natural psychological limitations it imposes on the individual, but also because progressive politics—nationalization, bureaucratization—have turned the national field of politics into an unnavigable matrix in which over two million unelected civil servants now have the power to create tens of thousands of "regulations" independently of the people's elected representatives. Only a restoration of federal-republicanism (another pipe dream, regrettably) could again make national politics available to the common man.
4
To suggest that participation in politics is readily open to all of us is wrong. For example, at presidential elections, 3 million of us were essentially disenfranchised, NY Democrats included. Furthermore, policy-making has always been skewed to the wealthy, and in the last twenty years it has become more so. Big corporations are undermining our nation-state (of the people, by the people, for the people) and imposing the "market-state." ("Money goes where it is wanted.") We may be able to resist that but not if pundits like Hersh keep telling us it's our fault. What does he suggest? Musketry?
The world certainly has become more complex. It does require "elites" to handle the tiller, but as Trump has told us, he'll allow the wealthy to govern us. As people struggle with this scenario, to describe their involvement as hobbyism is facile nonsense.
The world certainly has become more complex. It does require "elites" to handle the tiller, but as Trump has told us, he'll allow the wealthy to govern us. As people struggle with this scenario, to describe their involvement as hobbyism is facile nonsense.
6
It seems a little overwrought to condemn people for being lightly engaged in politics and, worse yet, enjoying themselves. If people like to read about and discuss politics but don't care much for phone banking, boring meetings, or endless solicitations for money, that's not pathologic--that's normal. Just like picking up some delicious summer fiction instead of Finnegan's Wake.
6
Phone banking is the absolute worst!
1
Half of the People in the States don't vote. That directly means half of people in the US don't care about their democratic process. What this article brings forth is there is no effective substitute for participation in local and national policy. The lazy attitude (apathy and arm chair participation) is disintegrating the effectiveness of the system. Politicians are a reflection of the attitudes of people as a whole. Extreme partisanship is laziness. And now the effect is LIES and MISINFORMATION win over reality because the lazy won't get out of their chair and shout this down. You get what you put into the system.
Au contraire. For me, at least. My involvement with local Indisible groups would never have happened without my "hobbyism". I wouldn't have known about efforts to call Congressmen and women ... I think this is just an article about how unpleasant and messy free exchanges of information (good and bad) can be.
6
Nah. I think you're missing a correlation here. The activities being called 'political hobbyism' may sometimes 'replace' serious participation -- but in my experience, no, they tend to correlate with it. That is, the folks I know of who post on FB, go to demonstrations, sign petitions etc. are the >same< ones who do things like always vote, stay informed on issues, communicate to others about them, register others to vote, and volunteer on election day to help get those people to the polls. They do the more trivial things because they care about politics, some to the point of obsession, and so that's what they think about & do.
There are many, many people like this around me. Here in my liberal district where we have been so gerrymandered that the GOP does not even run a candidate for rep in the generals, which practice in fact makes quite a difference ... and yes, there is a problem with the way that many people participate in democracy. But it consists of people who don't vote at all, or vote without understanding the issues or how things work, and therefore vote off the wrong foot or on the basis of crazy emotion. Self-destructive stuff like that.
There are many, many people like this around me. Here in my liberal district where we have been so gerrymandered that the GOP does not even run a candidate for rep in the generals, which practice in fact makes quite a difference ... and yes, there is a problem with the way that many people participate in democracy. But it consists of people who don't vote at all, or vote without understanding the issues or how things work, and therefore vote off the wrong foot or on the basis of crazy emotion. Self-destructive stuff like that.
7
I was wondering what happened - it had been a couple of weeks since the NYTimes published a "Democrats are to blame for Trump" article.
9
I think the writer is perhaps unintentionally demeaning a lot of people who do this "hobby" at great personal expense and exhaustion to themselves. There is a great risk of burnout -- and people have jobs and lives.
But hey, if people are finally collaborating over issues relevant to our global community, why is this such a bad thing? Perhaps this "hobby" becomes a passion or commitment for many others. (It's certainly a duty for me.) At the very least, the engagement may stimulate an investment in political inquiry that we have not had in the American public. It is so important to be informed now more than ever, because the ignorance and apathy that we have let addle the minds of mal-informed has come to a head under this administration. It is so important to vote, because to change the outcome is so much harder than it would have been to have just shown up in the first place.
But hey, if people are finally collaborating over issues relevant to our global community, why is this such a bad thing? Perhaps this "hobby" becomes a passion or commitment for many others. (It's certainly a duty for me.) At the very least, the engagement may stimulate an investment in political inquiry that we have not had in the American public. It is so important to be informed now more than ever, because the ignorance and apathy that we have let addle the minds of mal-informed has come to a head under this administration. It is so important to vote, because to change the outcome is so much harder than it would have been to have just shown up in the first place.
4
Disagree. Main problem is those chosen / financed to run for office. What's the fun of winning an election in a so-called "participatory democracy" (Did Hersh actually invoke that mawkish myth without a hearty guffaw?) if you have to consult with the rabble conned into voting for you?
"Everybody knows the good guys lost."
"Everybody knows the good guys lost."
Some of us may be hobbyists, but most of us are so busy working (often two and three jobs), supporting our families and servicing our debt that there's just no time for anything but the most shallow civic engagement.
Speaking for myself, an admitted news junkie and too-busy-working-to-be-an-activist political voyeur, the plain and simple reason I'm riveted to the news is that I am terrified down to my marrow about what's going to happen next.
I no longer waste energy arguing with people on Facebook or anywhere else; it only seems to increase the speed of the vortex that's sucking us all down.
It is over; "they," whoever they are (could it really be "us"?) have won. A sense of imminent catastrophe looms. In a very real sense, for most of us, there's nothing left to do but watch the headlines and hunker down.
Speaking for myself, an admitted news junkie and too-busy-working-to-be-an-activist political voyeur, the plain and simple reason I'm riveted to the news is that I am terrified down to my marrow about what's going to happen next.
I no longer waste energy arguing with people on Facebook or anywhere else; it only seems to increase the speed of the vortex that's sucking us all down.
It is over; "they," whoever they are (could it really be "us"?) have won. A sense of imminent catastrophe looms. In a very real sense, for most of us, there's nothing left to do but watch the headlines and hunker down.
6
Too radical? should I drop the reference to Obama? or Powerful?
I live among Republicans, evangelicals, and Trump supporters.
They listen to Fox News and talk radio.
I have been talking with them for 20 years. Doesn't go very far because we can't agree with the facts.
I have neighbors who still believe the Clintons had Vince Foster murdered.
They don't know the deficit numbers or job numbers for Bush versus Obama.
They claim Trump is restoring respect around the world to the US with proof that Saudi Arabia gave Trump a gold medal.
And they vote based on this alternate reality.
They listen to Fox News and talk radio.
I have been talking with them for 20 years. Doesn't go very far because we can't agree with the facts.
I have neighbors who still believe the Clintons had Vince Foster murdered.
They don't know the deficit numbers or job numbers for Bush versus Obama.
They claim Trump is restoring respect around the world to the US with proof that Saudi Arabia gave Trump a gold medal.
And they vote based on this alternate reality.
8
Europeans vote for physicists who talk about the moral obligation of caring for those who flee murderous regimes, Americans vote for celebrities who talk about women who bleed.
Voters get what they deserve.
Voters get what they deserve.
3
Why does the Times publish stuff that has the logical structure, if not the content, of right wing free association? Bad editors, I guess. "The problem is that hobbyism is replacing other forms of participation, like local organizing, supporting party organizations, neighbor-to-neighbor persuasion, even voting in midterm elections — the most recent midterms had the lowest level of voter participation in over 70 years." Not a shred of evidence that those who did not vote were the "hobbyists"--i.e., those who keep up on the news.
Ah, the Mandarin speaks. We are all just playing badly at this complicated game, are we? We should move out of the way and leave the serious stuff to the pros. Maybe a well-heeled cadre of academics and others who can tell us what we should think and give us what we really need. And you wonder why the Democratic brand is only slightly less worse than the Trump brand?
Newsflash - The problem is your sharp jerk left into the oblivion of socialism and beyond (I can't wait for the next installment of the NYT's "Red Century" to read all about the benefits of Communism.) It's not the voters that are the problem, its the product that Democrats (sorry, "Progressives") are churning out - Tired drivel that assumes that no one in this country occupies the sensible center. This is exactly why you lost the presidential election and why you keep losing. You have no clue. Truly. But, please, keep it up. It does make for amusing theater.
Newsflash - The problem is your sharp jerk left into the oblivion of socialism and beyond (I can't wait for the next installment of the NYT's "Red Century" to read all about the benefits of Communism.) It's not the voters that are the problem, its the product that Democrats (sorry, "Progressives") are churning out - Tired drivel that assumes that no one in this country occupies the sensible center. This is exactly why you lost the presidential election and why you keep losing. You have no clue. Truly. But, please, keep it up. It does make for amusing theater.
2
Democrats didn't lose - the Electoral College won. Any working voter worried about the economy who voted for a billionaire Republican is an uninformed ignorant fool. Also known as Trump's base. Trump let Putin's commies in the front door. Keep ignoring reality and voting Republican because it ruins the country, yeah, but it ticks off liberals.
Participation in government (local, state, national) used to be considered something that every eligible citizen should participate in. It used to be that civics were taught in school and the civic classes always promoted participation.
I always vote in elections - primaries, local, and national. I don't take the easy way of doing mail-in voting, but prefer to participate when the elections is scheduled. I prefer standing in my local precinct policing station with other voters.
This whiny article about participation and participants ignores the fact that our country have ceased to value participation. And I mean real participation - not the garbage from Facebook or Twitter (2 corrupt on-line products that will sell your personal and private data in a heartbeat).
It has become a fact of life that people want the easy way of doing everything and if they can afford it, the gadgets that promise you the easy way. For those who find voting on the scheduled day (usually the first Tuesday in November) or the primaries really have little or no interest in the issues at stake and really no little about what or who they are voting for. I doubt that most most people (esp. millennials) could hold a 2 minute conversation on the issues.
I think the future is bleak unless we return to a time when civics were taught in schools, and voting on election day was valued, and discussion of issues was not preempted by talking heads, whose job is to entertain us while not enlightening us.
I always vote in elections - primaries, local, and national. I don't take the easy way of doing mail-in voting, but prefer to participate when the elections is scheduled. I prefer standing in my local precinct policing station with other voters.
This whiny article about participation and participants ignores the fact that our country have ceased to value participation. And I mean real participation - not the garbage from Facebook or Twitter (2 corrupt on-line products that will sell your personal and private data in a heartbeat).
It has become a fact of life that people want the easy way of doing everything and if they can afford it, the gadgets that promise you the easy way. For those who find voting on the scheduled day (usually the first Tuesday in November) or the primaries really have little or no interest in the issues at stake and really no little about what or who they are voting for. I doubt that most most people (esp. millennials) could hold a 2 minute conversation on the issues.
I think the future is bleak unless we return to a time when civics were taught in schools, and voting on election day was valued, and discussion of issues was not preempted by talking heads, whose job is to entertain us while not enlightening us.
1
How much sensational hobbyist politicking needs to be reported before it stops being "news"? Many of us are so tired of hearing of these hobbyists' shenanigans that we tune out. Perhaps the media could play a more constructive social role by denying the hobbyists the thing they want most - attention.
2
The people who run the New York Transit Authority believe the problem with the subways are all the darn riders. They could run a perfectly nice system with pristine trains if it were not for all those pesky passengers.
3
The author is not saying you shouldn't be informed, though many commenters seem to have taken the piece this way. He is suggesting that relentless consumption of politics is not, in itself, meaningful political participation. If you are participating in local organizing, if you're canvassing, if you're attending community board meetings, if you've joined an activist group, etc. then that's great. You're participating. But if you're just "staying informed" (and maybe commenting/forwarding stuff online), well, how different is that from the way many fans follow sports?
By the way, if you live in NYC, here's a link to find your local community board. They have meetings once a month: http://www.nyc.gov/html/cau/html/cb/cb.shtml
By the way, if you live in NYC, here's a link to find your local community board. They have meetings once a month: http://www.nyc.gov/html/cau/html/cb/cb.shtml
7
Aside from a handfull of anecdotes culled from popular culture there is nothing in this article remotely like evidence to support the author's contention, certainly nothing like quantifiable evidence. That might be in part because the terms of his argument are so nebulous and ill-defined that they defy quantification. Or it might be just the bankruptcy of political science as an academic 'discipline' per se.
3
You may have a point, but as someone who is actively engaged in local politics and who follows political news assiduously, Hersh's article struck a responsive chord in me. I know too many people who fit the picture the article painted. They are really good at filling out on-line petitions and I suppose that has some merit, but I wish they would do more and get actively engaged in political activity at the local or state level instead or in addition. It does seem true that the Democratic Party "is in atrophy in state legislatures across the country". What Hersch says is quite possibly a factor in that atrophy.
It's easy to dismiss today's activists as "hobbyists" while promoting a vaguely sketched but puritanical ideal of "real" democratic participation.
But doing so is not going to save our democracy.
But doing so is not going to save our democracy.
8
The author seems to argue that people employing these techniques and technologies are privileged enough that they have nothing at stake -- as if they're following the news and taking action as some kind of sport or fad.
I correct/counter inaccurate statements online because many Americans kept our mouths shut while conspiracy theorists broke trust in our institutions and presidency (and now one is in power.) I counter anti-Muslim statements because my spouse is a Muslim immigrant and my son is the child of one, and I know that they are eyed with suspicion by this leadership (and more people as a result).
I follow the news closely because I want to be made aware if my country, founded on religious freedoms, is banning people because of their religion; or if our democracy is in fact under threat (by Russian interference, the incessant delegitimizing of the press etc.); or if my country of immigrants is now targeting immigrants and the most vulnerable; or if I might lose healthcare.
This isn't sport. Our principles and lives are challenged by the drastic changes occurring. It would have been helpful to note the concern that is driving what the author considers irrelevant actions. If there are more effective ways to impact our rather desperate situation, then by all means, make those suggestions.
I correct/counter inaccurate statements online because many Americans kept our mouths shut while conspiracy theorists broke trust in our institutions and presidency (and now one is in power.) I counter anti-Muslim statements because my spouse is a Muslim immigrant and my son is the child of one, and I know that they are eyed with suspicion by this leadership (and more people as a result).
I follow the news closely because I want to be made aware if my country, founded on religious freedoms, is banning people because of their religion; or if our democracy is in fact under threat (by Russian interference, the incessant delegitimizing of the press etc.); or if my country of immigrants is now targeting immigrants and the most vulnerable; or if I might lose healthcare.
This isn't sport. Our principles and lives are challenged by the drastic changes occurring. It would have been helpful to note the concern that is driving what the author considers irrelevant actions. If there are more effective ways to impact our rather desperate situation, then by all means, make those suggestions.
10
I would think Hersch does understand the concerns that drive people to follow the political news and to act as you do in your response. (You seem to go beyond what I would consider "hobbyism".) It is not "sport" but it is not enough. I too post on-line in an attempt to respond to inaccuracies and make what I think are important points. I even do that periodically on Breitbart.com, which is very interesting if often repulsive. Their commenting system has a much better discussion format that allows long threads to continue and you can carry out a dialogue for some days.
What I think Hersch is also saying is that "mass engagement" as a core value requires more. I think it is fairly easy to find ways to engage in a more involved and meaningful way. There is also much more than politics to be engaged in. There are lots of local community organizations we can become involved in which would contribute to the well being of individuals, groups and society.
What I think Hersch is also saying is that "mass engagement" as a core value requires more. I think it is fairly easy to find ways to engage in a more involved and meaningful way. There is also much more than politics to be engaged in. There are lots of local community organizations we can become involved in which would contribute to the well being of individuals, groups and society.
If legislative districts broadly reflected the underlying populations, rather than extreme sub-sets thereof, political discourse would be more measured. Instead, we give voice, loud voice in fact, to the extremes.
4
This article is not helpful to those of us who live in San Francisco. There is hardly anything we can do locally to effect change nationally. Millions of our votes for US President are thrown out as a result of the Electoral College. Our US Senators and US Representatives have no power. We suffer a net outflow of tax dollars. The result is a pitiful hobby of watching national politics in horror, and losing money in the process. But really, what else can we do aside from donating to ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and elections in Georgia? Would San Franciscans marching on Washington do anything other than inspire further resentment from the rest of the country?
73
I also live in San Francisco, and there is a lot we can do. First, we can work on the state and local level. Call the governor, your state representative, your state senator and the sheriff.
Second, you can influence voters in other California districts. We have seven Republican congressmen to rid ourselves of. Google "deep canvassing" and you'll find organizations that will help you connect with voters in other districts and improve turnout there.
Third, you can use apps like "Hustle" to text interested people in other states to help them organize. You can coordinate rides for them to protests, notify them to call their legislators, etc.
If you haven't been to an Indivisible meeting yet, I encourage you to go.
Second, you can influence voters in other California districts. We have seven Republican congressmen to rid ourselves of. Google "deep canvassing" and you'll find organizations that will help you connect with voters in other districts and improve turnout there.
Third, you can use apps like "Hustle" to text interested people in other states to help them organize. You can coordinate rides for them to protests, notify them to call their legislators, etc.
If you haven't been to an Indivisible meeting yet, I encourage you to go.
5
I also live in San Francisco and I think it's a little hypocritical to point the finger at others and protest how they are not doing enough to help people when our own very liberal city has a big homeless problem that no one seems to care about or one of the highest levels of wealth inequality. Middle class people are being driven out of city because home prices are so high. We are one of the richest states but we are ranked 7th worse in public education. We protest Trump's plan to build a wall but we Californian show little concern for that fact that migrant workers work long hours for little pay and are given no benefits. The problem is not that people are hobbyist about politics it's that they are indifferent to the suffering of others. They don't love the poor, they just hate Trump.
3
"In fact, it is not because of gerrymandering, Citizens United, cable news or any of the other common scapegoats that our system is broken, but because of us: ordinary people who are doing politics the wrong way."
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The author is waving a red herring. The superficiality of the voter is hardly new, however deplorable it is and always has been.
Meanwhile gerrymandering and Citizens United have fostered extreme behavior by our politicians, who only fear an attack from their more extreme flank, possibly a person narrowly supported by a flood of cash from one billionaire or special interest.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The author is waving a red herring. The superficiality of the voter is hardly new, however deplorable it is and always has been.
Meanwhile gerrymandering and Citizens United have fostered extreme behavior by our politicians, who only fear an attack from their more extreme flank, possibly a person narrowly supported by a flood of cash from one billionaire or special interest.
29
Ou contraire, Professor Hersh, the thrill of participatory democracy is that it finally, has participants. If there are voyeurism and easy ways to register their feelings, we are going towards mass participation which as you pointed out, is a core value of our system but transformed by Tweeter and Facebook.
It is the job and duty of the leaders of both parties, please Democratic leadership open your eyes, to transform these "cheap thrills" into functional organizations to produce those town hall meetings, those units that would follow up town halls ideas and agreements, organize locally and be the democratic apparatus for the creation of policy white papers and, the operational network to win elections.
These Political Hobbyists are a very exciting event because you see "ordinary people" discussing policy with passion. A great first step to obtaining record voter participation if Party leaders open their eyes. Parties already have a structure. Should not be that hard to put it to work.
1n the early 80's I was in grad school in Houston (UofH) and outside of our school of Political Science, nobody seemed to care. This was the first year of Reagan who was as ignorant as Trump but smarter because he surrounded himself with smart people and LISTENED to them. Political hobbyism could have help a lot back then.
It is the job and duty of the leaders of both parties, please Democratic leadership open your eyes, to transform these "cheap thrills" into functional organizations to produce those town hall meetings, those units that would follow up town halls ideas and agreements, organize locally and be the democratic apparatus for the creation of policy white papers and, the operational network to win elections.
These Political Hobbyists are a very exciting event because you see "ordinary people" discussing policy with passion. A great first step to obtaining record voter participation if Party leaders open their eyes. Parties already have a structure. Should not be that hard to put it to work.
1n the early 80's I was in grad school in Houston (UofH) and outside of our school of Political Science, nobody seemed to care. This was the first year of Reagan who was as ignorant as Trump but smarter because he surrounded himself with smart people and LISTENED to them. Political hobbyism could have help a lot back then.
8
It seemed during recent Democratic Primary the problem was not the hobbyists but rather the professionals who so distrusted the masses that they rigged the primaries. This was done with super delegates and other rules to discourage the people's choice in favor of the establishment choice. You know the pros choice. Bernie could have won but the leaders decided the people could t be trusted. Result we got an orange president who loves twitter.
10
yes the pros did their best to rig it, but, Hillary would have won anyway due to the depth of her longtime connections with Dem groups all over the map, esp. in red states. I'm a Bernie 2016 convert and I think HRC was not a good candidate for us and Bernie could well have been a winner. But that's not where the party was at. The party was stuck where it was, let's face it
2
As someone who has for years somewhat remorsefully commented on my own "hobbyism" as emulating Waldorf or Statler of the Muppet Show, I can understand Dr. Hersh's scolding. There is however a flipside to this slightly Savonarolean philippic: there is a vicious circle to political engagement. If you engage seriously, it tends to eat up most of your energy and time. People have a job, people have children, they might care for an elderly parent, whatever. Rewards are extremely delayed, and worst of all, you have to face endless sessions, busybodies and careerists, closed circles of friends, and all the other phenomena of the underbelly of politics. Furthermore, finding workable compromises, the essence of political action - as Republican senators are currently painfully demonstrating ─ is consuming time and energy. And that is as true on the National stage as for your local PTA. And if you have a little moral fibre left, more often than not you will find asking yourself: Am I losing it, is this one compromise too much, have I given in to winning over substance, to politics over policies?
Thus, instead of wagging the moral finger, I'd expect from a political scientist to show ways of how to create a virtuous cycle where the good ones don't fall off exhausted and the clever by half survive.
Thus, instead of wagging the moral finger, I'd expect from a political scientist to show ways of how to create a virtuous cycle where the good ones don't fall off exhausted and the clever by half survive.
14
"In fact, it is not because of gerrymandering, Citizens United, cable news or any of the other common scapegoats that our system is broken,"
Woah that is a broad and absolute assertion there. Methinks these have something to do with the problem.
Woah that is a broad and absolute assertion there. Methinks these have something to do with the problem.
4
...Our politics are broken because of ordinary people who are doing it the wrong way...
A Yale professor is telling ordinary people that they are doing democracy the wrong way.
No wonder Trump won.
A Yale professor is telling ordinary people that they are doing democracy the wrong way.
No wonder Trump won.
4
Welcome to the Third world... and where democracy is a farce! For what it is worth, America is leading the Third World and not the First World! We are thrilled/ chilled!
1
If you use Facebook and other such social media then there is a file with all relevant information about you that is available to the ‘consultants’ who advise those in the political contest and you will be ‘handled’ in the election period. Obama’s machine did this effectively well first, but now it is S.O.P. for all politicians who can afford it.
This Political Scientist author offers no solutions as to how the game could be demonetized so that ‘real people’ might have a chance to make their positions available to informed citizens.
The days of the League of Women Voters running the debates and Public Financing of elections have passed.
So have a good time playing the game but don’t expect the elected to represent you unless you are already powerful.
This Political Scientist author offers no solutions as to how the game could be demonetized so that ‘real people’ might have a chance to make their positions available to informed citizens.
The days of the League of Women Voters running the debates and Public Financing of elections have passed.
So have a good time playing the game but don’t expect the elected to represent you unless you are already powerful.
I do not view politics as a hobby. The issues our elected leaders are dealing with now are actually existential questions. And we have seen, over the last 3 decades especially, that they are not up to the task. Hobbies generally are not matters of life and death. I write congressmen/women to offer my voice. I know, since money is the real driver of issues, that my concerns are ignored. We are talking about the destruction of our democracy, not building model ships inside glass bottles.
1
It's always interesting when the finger pointing falls on "common" man. The Author is right about only one thing. The Problem is the participants but those participants are in Washington D.C. where they have perverted the rule of law that our founding fathers set in place so many years ago. These are the same participants who've choked the democratic process to maintain power at the expense of multiple political parties and a much larger dialogue with the very people they are elected to govern. The culmination of their grip on the nations politics gave us two of the most unpopular and divisive candidates to ever run for president. The problem is the GOP and the Democratic party as they are currently constructed.
An insightful diagnosis of the problem, or a major part of the problem. Hobbyism is combined with a firm belief than all opinions are equally valid whether based on years of training and study or just 2 minutes of exposure to social media. We don't have participatory democracy we have spectator democracy that more closely resembles Imperial Rome with bread and circusses for the mob and power to the Praetorian guard.
3
I don't suppose you are advocating for a civics test as a condition to allow people to vote. If yes, I assume you would restrict the test to people who disagree with you. Therein lies the problem.
Ya, sure hobbyism, that's a good idea. How about 30 years of relentless right wing propaganda via Rupert Murdoch on Fox Netwrok ,or Rush Limbaugh on Am radio , or every other self-rightous conservative the internet. this is what has done-in our democracy.
9
Instead of moaning about it lets use it. There has to be a way to connect voting and our desire for instant gratification. Let's make voting a fun competition, have parties celebrating those who went to vote, offer a free beer or coffee for showing your voter registration card, pop up registration parties, create some online gizmo( a poke, like, sticker). How about a voter registration/issue/candidate door knocker app that confirms you walked the neighborhood by GPS and time use that lets people compete, not unlike step exercise or tie them together. Come on you smart young and not so young computer geeks create a way to give us the instant gratification we want and get everyone voting.
Is this dramatically different than the civic duty I feel to vote, sure. Would This cheapen the voting process in some minds, probably. We live in the age of disruption for better or worse. Who will make the billions from disrupting our political hobbyism?
Is this dramatically different than the civic duty I feel to vote, sure. Would This cheapen the voting process in some minds, probably. We live in the age of disruption for better or worse. Who will make the billions from disrupting our political hobbyism?
2
I have received literally thousands of emails from Democrats asking for money. I have yet to receive email number one asking me to participate. Therein lies the problem.
5
You must be on the wrong lists. Most every day I get at least one message inviting me to do something, and I don't mean "sign this petition."
Perhaps it's BECAUSE of Citizens United that political hobbyism has replaced deeper engagement? When you feel your vote is meaningless, there's ever more reason for passivity - and for shouting.
5
The problem with US democracy is not hobbyism. The problem is the blatant hijacking of the democratic process in America by a small number of incredibly wealthy extremists who are willing to spend whatever it takes to stuff their personal self-interested agenda down the throats of the people. The whole process is now badly corrupted. America will never be great again until ordinary Americans rise up and put the the Koch-sponsored GOP into a minority. The most astonishing thing is how several tens of millions of obese Americans with no teeth can be persuaded that socialized medicine is infringing on their rights, is an overreach of Federal authority and so to vote GOP. Oh yes, that's where the Russians come in............
4
Hobbyism is in many ways a response and consequence of the hijacking you cite. The elements of factionalism and ideological purity that are intrinsic to hobbyism result from the success of the right wing culture war. The Kochs et al stir up the base instincts and latent animosities of the folks on the bottom, and hobbyists distance themselves from them. This destroys the blue collar/ minority / liberal coalition that has been the basis of progress since the New Deal. Progressives are left feeling helpless and retreat into their hobby bubbles. Clever, huh?
The dialogues of hobbyists are not without value but cannot replace hitting the bricks, setting aside class prejudices, participating in party actions to nominate appealing candidates with viable policies, in short, breaking out of the bubbles
The dialogues of hobbyists are not without value but cannot replace hitting the bricks, setting aside class prejudices, participating in party actions to nominate appealing candidates with viable policies, in short, breaking out of the bubbles
The trivialization of "hobbyism" exacerbated by Facebook, Twitter, dubious web sites, blogs, and superficial news media is a malady. However, another malady is the political organizations themselves which trivialize participation. Signing up voters, knocking on doors, truly stupid e-mails, and phone calls. Make participants feel like they are children.
What's missing here is some structure that helps thrash out issues and identify meaningful action. How?
What's missing here is some structure that helps thrash out issues and identify meaningful action. How?
2
Sounds a bit harsh and strident, like our political discourse.
2
Seems the author has no idea what is going on. We are in the midst of corporate coup of America by nefarious forces along with foreign enemies helping them along. You think this is just about politics? What's going on is America is in crisis; it's a fight for democracy. What we have in the White House is not normal. This is NOT politics as usual. Much bigger than that.
10
There's a reason the Democrats have lost the Presidency, both Houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, the majority of governorships & state legislatures. It certainly has nothing to do with political hobbyism. Right now on jobs, education, & many other issues, we suffer from a cacophony of white papers. There's no unity around what is wrong with America & what is the better country we want to build. And until we change, we’re going to struggle to mobilize supporters in the way we need to win tough races. To make matters worse we go out of our way to alienate working class voters; the very people we need to turn this around. You're bad for eating factory-farmed meat, owning a gun, & driving an SUV. You are bad for speaking the language of micro-aggressions, patriarchy, and cultural appropriation. Are you kidding me? And you expect their vote? Really put down the crack pipe & take a long hard look in the mirror. Is this working; is this the way forward? No, it isn't. We have to stop the cheap shots. No more deplorable comments. Jesus I have to say this? We should be ashamed of ourselves. We should be very concerned that the we are becoming more resigned to losing, more interested in maintaining party positions of influence (i.e. Pelosi) than fighting for positive legislation that addresses working class problems. We have met the enemy & it's us. We need to drain our own swamp. We need to stop being the party of Hollywood celebrities & remember we are the party of all Americans.
4
I was tricked into reading this article because it said "participatory democracy" in the title. I guess he does mention ballot initiatives at one point. Maybe a better title would be something about political hobbyism.
1
Eitan's proof that we're doing it wrong is simply that Donald Trump was elected. From that outcome pours the entire theory.
He takes an authoritarian approach that relies upon unelected party leaders to lead the dumb sheep towards the proper goals exactly like a dictatorship does.
Our leaders have been doing it wrong for decades. There's nothing new here. The only thing that has woken up the sleeping fascists is the fact that they don't like the president.
Boo hoo, Mr. Hersh. You're doing it wrong!
He takes an authoritarian approach that relies upon unelected party leaders to lead the dumb sheep towards the proper goals exactly like a dictatorship does.
Our leaders have been doing it wrong for decades. There's nothing new here. The only thing that has woken up the sleeping fascists is the fact that they don't like the president.
Boo hoo, Mr. Hersh. You're doing it wrong!
I don't think anyone likes to be lectured to.
No, thanks.
No, thanks.
1
It should come as no surprise that political hobbyists have had the most severe impact for Democrats when their leading intellectual models in the media and academia continue serve as role models with their own political hobbyism.
NYT, WaPo, CNN...Original journalism has been replaced by editorializing even the basic facts. It's not enough to say the Senate Republicans are failing to achieve consensus on the health bill, but according to the NYT this is an "embarrassment to Trump." Who knew? Choose any of the mainstream media outlets and their reporting will take facts but will be imbued with their anti-Trump spin for continued clicks and ratings. Gail Collins, Paul Krugman, Charles Blow...No need to read their pieces, because these hobbyists are predictable.
Meanwhile, like-minded readers flock to NYT and WaPo and flood comment boards with calls for Trump's impeachment which is then echoed ad nauseam among his critics who have't the faintest clue about civics. But no matter, they've done their part and they've "liked" and "up-voted" each others' anti-Trump comments so they're good.
Flip to academia next where our next generation of leaders assume that yelling and shouting at their professors is tantamount to civic discourse. Never mind that they haven't a clue about debate or argumentative skills. Shouting down their elders must be the right way because it feels so good. They can then go home, they've done their political hobbyism.
Time for change!
NYT, WaPo, CNN...Original journalism has been replaced by editorializing even the basic facts. It's not enough to say the Senate Republicans are failing to achieve consensus on the health bill, but according to the NYT this is an "embarrassment to Trump." Who knew? Choose any of the mainstream media outlets and their reporting will take facts but will be imbued with their anti-Trump spin for continued clicks and ratings. Gail Collins, Paul Krugman, Charles Blow...No need to read their pieces, because these hobbyists are predictable.
Meanwhile, like-minded readers flock to NYT and WaPo and flood comment boards with calls for Trump's impeachment which is then echoed ad nauseam among his critics who have't the faintest clue about civics. But no matter, they've done their part and they've "liked" and "up-voted" each others' anti-Trump comments so they're good.
Flip to academia next where our next generation of leaders assume that yelling and shouting at their professors is tantamount to civic discourse. Never mind that they haven't a clue about debate or argumentative skills. Shouting down their elders must be the right way because it feels so good. They can then go home, they've done their political hobbyism.
Time for change!
Mr Hersh does a good job of describing the problem but is a bit light on the solution side.
He hints at what should be done. He is advocating for human interaction. How many of you have taken the time to thoughtfully engage with the relative, neighbor, co-worker, or friend that you know is on the other side?
He hints at what should be done. He is advocating for human interaction. How many of you have taken the time to thoughtfully engage with the relative, neighbor, co-worker, or friend that you know is on the other side?
1
I've tried to thoughtfully engage with someone who is on the other side. It has never gone well. I live on a blue island in a blue state, so have had to reach far out to find them. Rebuffed, called names, or simply ignored, every time.
1
This article is not helpful. Provide me with a list of useful activities in which I can participate or actions I can take to be be involved in the political process. Don't just tell me what I'm doing wrong.
23
Start a local community action group. Meet at the library. Find and support candidates. Make it happen.
This is not fair. It is true that voters should be engaged with what elected officials are doing all the time but it is human nature to be complacent when satisfied with actions taken by elected officials. Those who unhappy with the direction of the country and specific legislative actions are always more motivated. Finding a way to engage voters who are satisfied would solve the problem of loss of congressional seats for the party in control of the Whitehouse.
As a Democrat I have never been so alarmed. I do not feel like a "political hobbyist." Though I recognize that other than contacting my Democratic legislators, there is nothing I can do right now. Somehow reading "real news" gives me the illision of vigilance. It also provides validation when I read op-eds by thoughtful Republicans who are alarmed and comments from other readers who express outrage daily at the state of affairs. I wish I could go to a rally. I live in a rural area that voted overwhelmingly for Trump. Talking with politics with many people here is not helpful.
Don't worry. I don't have enough money to start a PAC though I wish I did.
As a Democrat I have never been so alarmed. I do not feel like a "political hobbyist." Though I recognize that other than contacting my Democratic legislators, there is nothing I can do right now. Somehow reading "real news" gives me the illision of vigilance. It also provides validation when I read op-eds by thoughtful Republicans who are alarmed and comments from other readers who express outrage daily at the state of affairs. I wish I could go to a rally. I live in a rural area that voted overwhelmingly for Trump. Talking with politics with many people here is not helpful.
Don't worry. I don't have enough money to start a PAC though I wish I did.
7
We Participants are in for some surprises. While we analyze our President's tweets; His Vice President has just sent an "All-Call" to every state demanding the names, ages, address, social security numbers, party affiliation and voting record off All citizens voting since 2016.
All under the guise of Pence's Voter Election Integrity commission (actual name is important for this fishing expedition). I just wonder how will this square with the Big Government out of our business Republican voters? Every individual should be alarmed with the concept that ANY President's Administration could order this type of information.
Here is hoping Secretary of States and Election Commissions nationwide will stand up and refuse to comply. Mike Pence can sue.
All under the guise of Pence's Voter Election Integrity commission (actual name is important for this fishing expedition). I just wonder how will this square with the Big Government out of our business Republican voters? Every individual should be alarmed with the concept that ANY President's Administration could order this type of information.
Here is hoping Secretary of States and Election Commissions nationwide will stand up and refuse to comply. Mike Pence can sue.
5
@Candlewick: My typo. This information is being requested of all individuals Voting since 2006-- not 2016
Hmmm....just as I was commuting home this evening I got a text from someone I don't know from Bernie Sanders' organization Our Revolution, asking me if I want to apply to be a Democratic county comitteeperson - to attend meetings, work to increase voter turnout, address voter concerns and convey them back to the party. Deadline for applying is July 13th, and I'm very seriously considering it, though it's something I've never done before and would likely not have thought of had I not received this text.
I think Mr. Hirsch raises some very valid concerns in this piece about the superficial nature of some of the political involvement of late amongst citizens; but there is a total absence of detail about those trying to change that and revitalize political participation on the Democratic side, in a real way. I have watched wrenching videos of packed town hall meetings in South Jersey and Iowa, for instance, that were nothing like what the author describes and which I found very inspiring. The citizens speaking up were passionate, prepared and well-informed. It would be nice to have some recognition of that instead of just dismissing it all as "political hobbyism." There are things happening beyond keyboard warfare - maybe he hasn't looked at this deeply enough to see them.
I think Mr. Hirsch raises some very valid concerns in this piece about the superficial nature of some of the political involvement of late amongst citizens; but there is a total absence of detail about those trying to change that and revitalize political participation on the Democratic side, in a real way. I have watched wrenching videos of packed town hall meetings in South Jersey and Iowa, for instance, that were nothing like what the author describes and which I found very inspiring. The citizens speaking up were passionate, prepared and well-informed. It would be nice to have some recognition of that instead of just dismissing it all as "political hobbyism." There are things happening beyond keyboard warfare - maybe he hasn't looked at this deeply enough to see them.
25
* Sorry, Mr. Hersh not Hirsch!
Democrats didn't need to go to town halls In 2009, and now they do. Does the author really not understand that. Or does he just want to discourage political participation?
9
They did need to go then, they just didn't realize it. So we got Obamacare instead of a public option. And they lost how many seats in 2010?
Whether a hobbyist or active participant, the problem with democracy is that everyone gets to vote.
7
And to think, we had literacy Tests for Blacks and immigrants must be knowledgeable about the U.S. Constitution- but Native born... but the rest- "I like his hair; His father was nice; He owns hotels..."
I sympathize with many of the author's criticisms (despite the occasionally smug tone), but he completely ignores the extent to which Democratic Party apparatuses have been structured to encourage this hobbyist approach and puts the blame on individuals. It took weeks for me to even find an actual person in the Missouri Democratic Party with whom I could discuss volunteer options (website enquiries are met only with fundraising emails), only to be told "it's not the season yet"! I eventually persuaded a guy in my county office to let me do some data entry to help the cause. Democratic leadership has conflated party organizing with expanding email lists and the occasional big money dinner, ignoring the value of boots on the ground and apparently believing we have no ideas to promote, only candidates to support, thus wasting every other year of what could have been developing social networks necessary to create an actual movement. Republicans have utilized churches this way, Democrats must carve their own permanent, year-round alliances.
75
Amen..
3
Written by the same person who probably says protests never work. Political "hobbyists" are current historians and thanks to social media, the average person knows more about what's going on politically than ever before. And learns the daily lessons of civics which alas, are no longer taught in our schools. As for protests, in spite of social media, I've found that aside from their strong message, they are a better than ever place to network and plan the next move.
5
Oh no, I am sure he thinks protest does work. But armchair politics is more simmilar to complaining than it is to protesting. To protest one should be willing to risk something. In a general strike you risk your salary, in a demostration you risk having to run if things get hot (and i am not talking about looting). Same with some of the marchs that happened during this past Spring. Lots of colours and catchy signs (all of them different to show one's wit). Half the time I had no idea what the specific aim of those marchs were. For a march to become a demostration (a signal of the strengh of the people vs goverment) everybody should use the same voice: the individual citizens (powerless) become a unified mass (unstoppable). For it to work theere is no next move. There is the will of risking to win. And that will never happen in this country
But, of course, the proof is in the pudding. Is this leading to a realization of any part of the progressive agenda? 2018 is around the corner; do we have any winning candidates to run? Are we actually doing anything to save Medicaid? Will we be ready for 2020?
Going to town hall meetings is the only "non hobby" thing you could come up with? Wow. Thoughtful. The problem isn't Citizen's United? The thing is, you have a good point and it could/should have been stated in one or two paragraphs, and then you could use the rest of your word limit on something meaningful. Ugh.
22
True, the American people just aren't ready for democracy. Better to just skip ahead to the totalitarian future (left or right, what does it matter?) that awaits us.
1
The quality of a democracy is directly related to the level of education of the citizenry. Every country gets the leadership it deserves. Thus, the level of education of our citizenry explains most of the current sad situation in Washington, D.C.
25
Not really, education has little to do with political outcomes. The corporate media controlled by six international corporations provides over 90 % of the flow of 'information' that form the opinions most people hold and thus set the limits of discussion of 'the educated' rather well. Options are restrained, would be one way to say it.
1
When Trump was elected I said it was a good argument for funding better public school education.
1
wsmrer:
Agreed. Mainstream television and newspapers, all spout the same false economic stories. Their storyline (and the economic policies driven by that storyline), have led to a dismantling of New Deal policies which led to the broadest prosperity ever seen. If adjusted for inflation and productivity growth, the *minimum* wage of 1969 would be over $19 per hour today - higher than today's *median* wage. And back then, most workers made *well* over minimum wage. But that isn't enough. They want to take it all. And pretend to be generous by giving a few pennies of EITC and SNAP trinkets. Dean calls this "loser liberalism".
For those reading WaPo, NYT, and listening to CNN, the economic story has been filtered to make it look like broad prosperity is impossible, when it is not at all impossible.
Dean Baker is constantly debunking the economic propaganda put out by these advocates for the 1%, in a way that is clear, easy to understand, fact and numbers based - although quite direct and with lots of sarcasm. Clearly opinionated - but completely intellectually honest. If the facts tell a different story than he would like to tell, he follows the numbers and facts, and concedes reality.
Highly recommended.
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/
Agreed. Mainstream television and newspapers, all spout the same false economic stories. Their storyline (and the economic policies driven by that storyline), have led to a dismantling of New Deal policies which led to the broadest prosperity ever seen. If adjusted for inflation and productivity growth, the *minimum* wage of 1969 would be over $19 per hour today - higher than today's *median* wage. And back then, most workers made *well* over minimum wage. But that isn't enough. They want to take it all. And pretend to be generous by giving a few pennies of EITC and SNAP trinkets. Dean calls this "loser liberalism".
For those reading WaPo, NYT, and listening to CNN, the economic story has been filtered to make it look like broad prosperity is impossible, when it is not at all impossible.
Dean Baker is constantly debunking the economic propaganda put out by these advocates for the 1%, in a way that is clear, easy to understand, fact and numbers based - although quite direct and with lots of sarcasm. Clearly opinionated - but completely intellectually honest. If the facts tell a different story than he would like to tell, he follows the numbers and facts, and concedes reality.
Highly recommended.
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/
It is the quality of the discourse, determined by underlying pathology. In Pakistan for example the discourse is on whether or not blashphemers should be put to death. Also on the Glory of Islam. In the US the ideological is who is the purer Republican. Both ideological. Both us or them type tribalism.
In European "socialistic" countries like Switzerland, Sweden, etc, the discourse is on the greater good for the most.
In European "socialistic" countries like Switzerland, Sweden, etc, the discourse is on the greater good for the most.
7
If enough voters are willing to elect Republicans to cut taxes for the rich and stick it to the poor, all the while chanting in cult-like unison fact-free things like "tax cuts pay for themselves" and "regulations kill jobs", then indeed it is the Republican participants that are the problem.
Democrats have the science on their side, from CBO to FCIC to IPCC. Republicans just repeat Fox News talking points, no matter how often the facts refute them.
Democrats have the science on their side, from CBO to FCIC to IPCC. Republicans just repeat Fox News talking points, no matter how often the facts refute them.
6
What a great analysis.
If political hobbyists are the yin, then the Trumpeter Nihilists are the yang.
This article suggests that both are damaging the future of democracy, and helping weaken the foundations of democratic institutions we may currently take for granted. If the pol hob is trading wry stories, the Trumpeter Nihilist is trading conspiracy theories, and living vicariously through an overtly misanthropic, sociopathic, narcissistic, misogynist. IF the pol hob is feeling invulnerable in the suburban and city bubble, the Tru Nihilist has festering boils of gender, class, race related resentment and now wishes to just plain lash out and hurt everyone and everything. The pol hob lives in a ethereal, ephemeral, once-removed place; all real concerns around inflation, jobs, healthcare, environment, education are purely theoretical, once-removed constructs. The Tru Nihilist lives it, and has withdrawn into the basement to fabricate a bomb, and toss it at everyone vulnerable.
Both, one through inaction, and the other through misanthropy, seem highly dangerous to the future of the republic. Who cares which one is more dangerous.
Kalidan
Kalidan
If political hobbyists are the yin, then the Trumpeter Nihilists are the yang.
This article suggests that both are damaging the future of democracy, and helping weaken the foundations of democratic institutions we may currently take for granted. If the pol hob is trading wry stories, the Trumpeter Nihilist is trading conspiracy theories, and living vicariously through an overtly misanthropic, sociopathic, narcissistic, misogynist. IF the pol hob is feeling invulnerable in the suburban and city bubble, the Tru Nihilist has festering boils of gender, class, race related resentment and now wishes to just plain lash out and hurt everyone and everything. The pol hob lives in a ethereal, ephemeral, once-removed place; all real concerns around inflation, jobs, healthcare, environment, education are purely theoretical, once-removed constructs. The Tru Nihilist lives it, and has withdrawn into the basement to fabricate a bomb, and toss it at everyone vulnerable.
Both, one through inaction, and the other through misanthropy, seem highly dangerous to the future of the republic. Who cares which one is more dangerous.
Kalidan
Kalidan
I can only speak for myself, but I wonder if the intense interest in following the news, social media etc. is to at least keep up with what is going on--it is our government, after all.
Besides making sure I vote, what else could I do? I can't afford to donate money, and that seems to be what candidates and parties seem to want most. I would love to have conversations with people who have different views (believe me, I've tried!), and I make a serious effort to get my news from many different sources, and I like to read/watch thoughtful conservative pieces --but it is too difficult when people you know can't even "agree" on facts. People seem entrenched in their beliefs now, and feel justified in being so.
Unfortunately Hersh seems to think that unless you are ready to make politics your life, don't bother.
Sorry, I disagree.
Besides making sure I vote, what else could I do? I can't afford to donate money, and that seems to be what candidates and parties seem to want most. I would love to have conversations with people who have different views (believe me, I've tried!), and I make a serious effort to get my news from many different sources, and I like to read/watch thoughtful conservative pieces --but it is too difficult when people you know can't even "agree" on facts. People seem entrenched in their beliefs now, and feel justified in being so.
Unfortunately Hersh seems to think that unless you are ready to make politics your life, don't bother.
Sorry, I disagree.
10
I don't feel that it's hobbyism, or the general style of engagement in politics that is the problem-it's the simple fact that for decades, we had countless drives to "get out and vote" and a sort of shaming that if you don't vote you've no right to complain. This placed the focus on the act of voting, as a participatory activity, where everyone feels like they've accomplished something, but having no idea what they've really done.
But the tangible effect of this is that people make largely uninformed votes, but feel they have to vote because it's their civic duty. Your civic duty is to make educated votes that reflect the values of your community and the society you want to live in.
At virtually all precincts, you can vote straight party ticket. This should never be allowed anywhere. Too many people vote for people they've never heard of based on decisions that have absolutely nothing to do with their qualifications for the position they're running for-most often what team they are endorsed by.
Political hobbyists are not the problem. A complete lack of critical thinking skills and basic understanding of civics is the problem. The political hobbyists who get accurate information about government and it's role in our lives are not the problem. People who get rubbish information that supports their preconceived notion so long as it benefits their team are the problem.
But the tangible effect of this is that people make largely uninformed votes, but feel they have to vote because it's their civic duty. Your civic duty is to make educated votes that reflect the values of your community and the society you want to live in.
At virtually all precincts, you can vote straight party ticket. This should never be allowed anywhere. Too many people vote for people they've never heard of based on decisions that have absolutely nothing to do with their qualifications for the position they're running for-most often what team they are endorsed by.
Political hobbyists are not the problem. A complete lack of critical thinking skills and basic understanding of civics is the problem. The political hobbyists who get accurate information about government and it's role in our lives are not the problem. People who get rubbish information that supports their preconceived notion so long as it benefits their team are the problem.
10
This is the least persuasive article that I have read in the NYT. So, what is Hersh's job? Is he a politician by profession? Does he live on writing articles of this kind? If the answer is No, he is just another political hobbyist.
3
There seems to be an elephant in the room here, and that would be the rather large fake conservative media empire, with fake reporters, fake news outlets, fake think tanks, etc. This well financed machine produces vacuous non-factual political entertainment through entities such as Fox news, backed up by fake experts with fake research derp. Through this con game the plutocrats are attempting to render our democracy null and void while they hold down wages to the point that the middle class is dying out. The progressives I know are morally shocked at what's going on. This isn't entertainment.
9
A thoughtful analysis does not blame those who hold the least power for economic, social and political consequences of policy mistakes.
7
The problem with this column is that it was written because Trump won the White House. Our Democracy does work. If it did not we would never have had a President Obama and the current occupant of the White House would be named Clinton or Bush.Our current participatory Democracy has shielded America from becoming a country where 2 or 3 prominent political families control the oval office and the debate over important issues. Our Democracy provided a highly demoralized and marginalized group(working class whites)the means to play a pivotal role in our last election. A similar group that has been the object of derision(poor urban Blacks)helped put Obama in the White House. Our system has given us President Trump. It may give us President Bernie Sanders or President Hillary Clinton or President Pence. This system was designed by the founders to afford us Democracy not de facto royalty or Oligarchy. There will be a President after Trump and as in previous elections some will be happy with the result and others will not.
5
please. the amount of "poor urban blacks" that helped put Obama in the white house is far eclipsed by the sheer number of "working class whites" that voted for trump. and give me a break about our democracy does work. if it truly did, the electoral college would have done its job and denied Trump the presidency, had they only understood why it was put in place to begin with.
"Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others."
The electoral college should be ashamed of itself.
"Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others."
The electoral college should be ashamed of itself.
Actually, our system gave us Hillary.
Several years ago I was in the audience listening to Lee Kuan Yew, the founder of modern day Singapore, speak. Mr. Lee had been the actual and subsequent de facto dictator, albeit a benevolent dictator, that led Singapore from poverty to wealth over many decades.
Mr. Lee made an offhand comment "Participatory democracy is overrated." that probably caught the attention of every American in the audience. Despite American's distaste for the types of governance in Singapore and China, their tightly managed paths to prosperity and rational, even if undemocratic, approach to government has made their model increasingly attractive to developing world countries. At the same time the latest dysfunction in the US government only decreases the stature of the American system around the world.
Mr. Lee made an offhand comment "Participatory democracy is overrated." that probably caught the attention of every American in the audience. Despite American's distaste for the types of governance in Singapore and China, their tightly managed paths to prosperity and rational, even if undemocratic, approach to government has made their model increasingly attractive to developing world countries. At the same time the latest dysfunction in the US government only decreases the stature of the American system around the world.
2
As an apolitical individual, I despise the political debates of the intellectuals and intellectasters who talk, but do nothing. A process of political change is a slow one, short of an armed overthrow of the sitting government and some other types seizing power.
The problem that the US is facing now, after the election of a foulmouthed boor to the throne of the Union, is: (1) Does the electoral system assure a good representation of the country's voters? Or (2) Should it be replaced by the popular majority vote?
I am not a believer in (1), but I fear that (2) will make the three most populous and leftist States determine the US Presidency -- New York, Illinois, and California.
The problem that the US is facing now, after the election of a foulmouthed boor to the throne of the Union, is: (1) Does the electoral system assure a good representation of the country's voters? Or (2) Should it be replaced by the popular majority vote?
I am not a believer in (1), but I fear that (2) will make the three most populous and leftist States determine the US Presidency -- New York, Illinois, and California.
1
You suggest that popular vote is the better of the two electoral alternatives that you can imagine, but then you seem to reject what you expect would be the outcome of a popular election. That leaves you with no alternative. But why are you worrying about particular states in a system in which states don't count?
The problem is not participating politically in ways that this author finds superficial. Any kind of engagement is a way of reminding ourselves about the power of the political realm over our lives. Following the news, writing comments, going to rallies, contacting Representatives, and so on, remind us what we want and need from leaders.
Just then take that sense of activism and keep going with it; to vote, or to contribute to and volunteer for candidates and for causes worth championing.
Just then take that sense of activism and keep going with it; to vote, or to contribute to and volunteer for candidates and for causes worth championing.
5
I agree with this article and it has clearly offended some commentators. I agree with the article because I have listened to people talk about the march they did, the one they will attend, the protest they forwarded to their congressionals, et al, but not how they will do canvassing or figure out who can run successfully or how to capture political offices in state legislatures. They get demoralized with the loss in Georgia; they utter expletives about Trump. None of these things convert to political wins.
When I see how Dems convert the string of protest activities into political power that wins races on election day, down to the county clerk, then I will think that people are doing more than "protesting." I agree with the notion that an unending string of activities that do not amount to running candidates and developing a vision...will not result in political power.
Look around all ye who are offended. How is what you are doing garnering political support? It is venting, it feels good, in builds momentum, but then momentum toward what?
When I see how Dems convert the string of protest activities into political power that wins races on election day, down to the county clerk, then I will think that people are doing more than "protesting." I agree with the notion that an unending string of activities that do not amount to running candidates and developing a vision...will not result in political power.
Look around all ye who are offended. How is what you are doing garnering political support? It is venting, it feels good, in builds momentum, but then momentum toward what?
11
I learned the importance of voting from a young age. My father used to take me with him when he voted after coming home from work. BTW we did not have a car and utilized public transportation in Detroit which meant buses. This was when Detroit was a functioning city with a population of just over 1.6 million.
Just loved pulling the red lever to the right to close the curtain and then clicking the various selections. Of course my father had to assist me.
As Detroit descended into dysfunction (BTW Robert Reich, this was long before the mortgage meltdown) the lines became longer my family always voted.
This was pre- and post-LBJ and his disastrous policies.
No fad, no hobby. We saw crime and violence in our neighborhood increase but we always voted.
Hey Hersh, you might want to try and interview some of the few remaining voters with similar experiences from that time. You might learn something that would lead to something other than browbeating your fellow liberals.
Just loved pulling the red lever to the right to close the curtain and then clicking the various selections. Of course my father had to assist me.
As Detroit descended into dysfunction (BTW Robert Reich, this was long before the mortgage meltdown) the lines became longer my family always voted.
This was pre- and post-LBJ and his disastrous policies.
No fad, no hobby. We saw crime and violence in our neighborhood increase but we always voted.
Hey Hersh, you might want to try and interview some of the few remaining voters with similar experiences from that time. You might learn something that would lead to something other than browbeating your fellow liberals.
6
Both parties suffer from a concentration of power at the fringes of American values. Bernie Sanders has more in common with the Tea Party than either party is willing to admit. To work, democracy involves deal making. Deals get made near the center of the political spectrum. Once upon a time our politicians did that routinely. The past 30 years empowerment of the fringes has made deal making much rarer and democracy suffers.
5
The Boston Tea Party was about East India Tea being tax exempt because the East India Company wrote the tax laws. Today's Tea Party knows nothing about history and has nothing in common with Bernie Sanders who knows history and the constitution and knows that neoliberal America of the late 20th and early 21st century is the social philosophy America sought to destroy back in 1776.
While emotionally discomfiting, the author's argument certainly does resonate in its consternation at how modern democracy operates. While I don't know of any empirical data to support the argument that political "hobbyism" is replacing the kind of active political participation that matters, we certainly should not ignore the fact that most members of democratic states do not directly participate in any action that ensures their own interests are met. The fact that voter turnout is dismally low (nearly as many people watch the Superbowl every year as those who vote for US president every four) doesn't even scratch the surface - does anyone actually believe that the thinkers who developed our modern democratic institutions expected little more of citizens than that perhaps half of them occasionally show up for a round of elections?
I do suspect that what this author calls political hobbyists are, in fact, some of the more politically engaged members of society, but if that is the case, and those who are most engaged do so primarily through a digital medium and, at times, the ballot box, then we really need to recognize that this level of dis-engagement from civic society plays a large part in the current state of modern politics.
I do suspect that what this author calls political hobbyists are, in fact, some of the more politically engaged members of society, but if that is the case, and those who are most engaged do so primarily through a digital medium and, at times, the ballot box, then we really need to recognize that this level of dis-engagement from civic society plays a large part in the current state of modern politics.
3
Politically engaged, yes, effectively engaged, I am not seeing it yet.
1
The elected don't care about the hobbyists. The elected may need to care about who will vote for them, but only every few years when they are up for election. And really they don't have to care much because they already have name recognition and money in their gerrymandered fiefdoms. If they have to run in a non-gerrymandered area, perhaps they can get help from foreign government hackers, or from native special interest groups and billionaires.
What the elected might care about is whether they can be trapped into taking a position that won't play well in the next election, but only if it plays so badly in fact that it could affect their re-election. And really, a well funded and well orchestrated campaign can make most of that sort of problem go away anyway.
What the elected officials do need to care about is donors.
So the real question is why don't the participants/voters get that and go after the donors?
Eitan is right, it's the participants that have ruined things, but it's because they don't understand what their true power is and they don't understand how to leverage their power.
Clearly, the Donor class doesn't want them educated to understand it. They are very happy manipulating reliable voter blocks who don't know, they are voting for the donor class agenda.
What the elected might care about is whether they can be trapped into taking a position that won't play well in the next election, but only if it plays so badly in fact that it could affect their re-election. And really, a well funded and well orchestrated campaign can make most of that sort of problem go away anyway.
What the elected officials do need to care about is donors.
So the real question is why don't the participants/voters get that and go after the donors?
Eitan is right, it's the participants that have ruined things, but it's because they don't understand what their true power is and they don't understand how to leverage their power.
Clearly, the Donor class doesn't want them educated to understand it. They are very happy manipulating reliable voter blocks who don't know, they are voting for the donor class agenda.
5
The actual problem with voter participation in recent years is that voters have no interest in the actual news because they prefer fantasy, particularly the fantastic notions that one or another candidate will surely make them wealthier.
5
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Winston Churchill
21
You can't make people vote or care about politics regarding things they have no interests in. I don't care too much about European politics or wars in Middle East because i don't have much say in it. And we know that voting doesn't count much in America just because of the large population. We can't possibly want the same thing in a country with 300 million people. I don't agree with Republicans or Democrats because I don't like their divisiveness. We can't teach empathy and interest for other people easily.
3
Your article offers an interesting perspective. It is probably wrong for voters to treat politics as a hobby-interest. That's clearly not how the Founders treated it, nor is it how the current crop of politicians do. What becomes more and more clear with each election is that votes shouldn't be apportioned 'one person, one vote' anymore... our current political system doesn't reflect that. Our elected officials already understand and respond differently. What our politicians already understand, and act on, is not 'one person, one vote', it is 'one dollar, one vote'. Our political system could dispense with the pretense of representative democracy 'for the people' and just recognize the existing reality of 'for the wealth' instead. No hobbyists, only people willing to make a serious investment. Once that investment would have been civic involvement, serious effort to understand issues and tradeoffs. Now that investment is "What's in it for me? What is my ROI?" to the politicians... and the payoffs are evident. The current pretension of "health care reform" when the actual effort is a huge tax cut, for, of course, the wealthy. There, exactly, is the ROI. Changing our system would merely remove the false front on our political reality.
2
I've never understood why people who don't give a dime or time to a political party get to choose the party candidates. Good thing we didn't have television or party primaries when Abe Lincoln was nominated by his party to run for president.
1
Americans listening, reading, watching, talking obsessively about politics, without marching in protests, working for campaigns, or running for office themselves is nothing new.
The age-old injunction to refrain from talking about religion or politics in polite company only goes to show how much we always have. We Americans can't help ourselves. In the mid 19th century, Alexis de Tocqueville famously observed of the American character, "If his private affairs leave him any leisure, he instantly plunges into the vortex of politics" and that "an American cannot converse, but he can discuss, and his talk falls into dissertation. He speaks to you as if he was addressing a meeting." Our crazy uncles have been holding forth at holiday dinners forever.
The professor presents zero evidence that "political hobbyism" has somehow markedly increased with the advent of cable news and digital technologies or that, if increased, it represents some kind of substitutive degradation of more active kinds of political participation. Perhaps it is so, but where are the measures to compare what went before to what transpires now? So much for "Political Science" as a science. This is just a rehash of personal and popular impressions, fueled by media and technology self-promotion of "the new." Professor, take note: there is, however, one ultimate form of idle "political hobbyism": a Ph.D. in Political Science.
The age-old injunction to refrain from talking about religion or politics in polite company only goes to show how much we always have. We Americans can't help ourselves. In the mid 19th century, Alexis de Tocqueville famously observed of the American character, "If his private affairs leave him any leisure, he instantly plunges into the vortex of politics" and that "an American cannot converse, but he can discuss, and his talk falls into dissertation. He speaks to you as if he was addressing a meeting." Our crazy uncles have been holding forth at holiday dinners forever.
The professor presents zero evidence that "political hobbyism" has somehow markedly increased with the advent of cable news and digital technologies or that, if increased, it represents some kind of substitutive degradation of more active kinds of political participation. Perhaps it is so, but where are the measures to compare what went before to what transpires now? So much for "Political Science" as a science. This is just a rehash of personal and popular impressions, fueled by media and technology self-promotion of "the new." Professor, take note: there is, however, one ultimate form of idle "political hobbyism": a Ph.D. in Political Science.
5
It's not easy to motivate people to do the hard work of knocking on doors, grassroots organizing, and party building when big money interests control our politics. Bernie Sanders' campaign probably came closest to the kind of old-fashioned involvement the author refers to - yet Sanders lost to the rich establishment candidate with the Wall Street donors.
To return our democracy to the people, take money out of politics. Overturn Citizens United. Pass campaign finance reform.
Of course none of that will happen as long as Republicans are in charge. Which they will be due to gerrymandered districts and a Supreme Court majority. And they won't get rid of the undemocratic Electoral College because it gives them an advantage in presidential elections.
Democrats have been organizing more protests than we've seen since Vietnam. Mostly through social media. Millions have participated.
Democrats are engaged. But they need to update their reason for being to appeal to the country as it is today. Four decades of Republican propaganda won't be overcome overnight.
It will take leadership and lots of hard work. Democrats have the heart and the energy. We are not "hobbyists." But the cards are stacked against us.
To return our democracy to the people, take money out of politics. Overturn Citizens United. Pass campaign finance reform.
Of course none of that will happen as long as Republicans are in charge. Which they will be due to gerrymandered districts and a Supreme Court majority. And they won't get rid of the undemocratic Electoral College because it gives them an advantage in presidential elections.
Democrats have been organizing more protests than we've seen since Vietnam. Mostly through social media. Millions have participated.
Democrats are engaged. But they need to update their reason for being to appeal to the country as it is today. Four decades of Republican propaganda won't be overcome overnight.
It will take leadership and lots of hard work. Democrats have the heart and the energy. We are not "hobbyists." But the cards are stacked against us.
5
Apparently the problem with Democrats is that their political hobby is belated. Before their shock at this election, they couldn't even bother to vote.
Having an interest in governance & elections, hobby or otherwise is not a negative, it's a start.
One shouldn't necessarily have to be a radical activist, just go out & vote.
Had there been this level of 'hobby' interest on the left, this entire thing would have gone dramatically differently. The Democrats were beyond lazy, that's why they lost. They had the majority, but they were facing a radicalized minority on the right.
It's a huge, largely thankless sacrifice to be an activist. There were amazing grassroots activist efforts for the Sanders campaign, what they achieved with small contributions & passion was astounding & unprecedented. They were not hobbyists, they were wholly involved. Their passion was mocked & derided by Democrats instead of celebrated.
But Bernie or not, Democrats would have won if they simply voted. It doesn't take channeling Abbie Hoffman to go out & vote on election day, that's the barest minimum civic duty, & it would have been more than enough to keep Trump from taking the presidency.
Having an interest in governance & elections, hobby or otherwise is not a negative, it's a start.
One shouldn't necessarily have to be a radical activist, just go out & vote.
Had there been this level of 'hobby' interest on the left, this entire thing would have gone dramatically differently. The Democrats were beyond lazy, that's why they lost. They had the majority, but they were facing a radicalized minority on the right.
It's a huge, largely thankless sacrifice to be an activist. There were amazing grassroots activist efforts for the Sanders campaign, what they achieved with small contributions & passion was astounding & unprecedented. They were not hobbyists, they were wholly involved. Their passion was mocked & derided by Democrats instead of celebrated.
But Bernie or not, Democrats would have won if they simply voted. It doesn't take channeling Abbie Hoffman to go out & vote on election day, that's the barest minimum civic duty, & it would have been more than enough to keep Trump from taking the presidency.
10
Sorry, I don't share your "impressions". I vote and I watch and learn. More than I can say for the voters who vote against their own interests by voting for t-rump and faux news. Maybe it is time for mandatory voting....
1
"Rather than having party leaders vet candidates for competency and sanity, as most democracies do, our parties turned the nomination process into a reality show in which the closest things to vetting are a clap-o-meter and a tracking poll."
Well, this almost invalidates the whole article.
Well, this almost invalidates the whole article.
1
Our times strike me as the epitome of people who are afraid of change. Blue collar white folks fear so many things right now -- loss of blue collar jobs, the growth in the population of people of color and immigrants, their diminishing importance in the economy, the decline of traditional religion, the rise of mystifying technology, etc. etc. This is not an easy time. Almost anyone who isn't rich is worried. Trump has been a master of promising to return to the "good old days" and blue collar white folks have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. So what to do?? Quite frankly --- vote. Its just that simple. And if you don't vote in every election, then you should just shut up. Non-voters are the ultimate hypocrits. Young, old, in-between.
4
Is this opinion piece another attempt by the NYTimes to have a fake "balance?" Well, it isn't working. There are enough holes in the article's premises to drive a truck through, which a number of commenters have ably accomplished.
News outlets in panic due to their lack of profitability have seized on the idea that agitating a heavily-propagandized corps -
- (Obama pronunciation; ''corpse'') -
- of easily fooled emotion-bots will result in the clicks that mark success on the Internet. The result of such drilling is that the emotionally unstable go out to murder their assigned political enemies and the more stable ones waste their time on media.
The result is that one news outlet after another falls into the hands of people who have never even visited a newspaper or broadcast news studio.
No wonder our culture is going nuts.
- (Obama pronunciation; ''corpse'') -
- of easily fooled emotion-bots will result in the clicks that mark success on the Internet. The result of such drilling is that the emotionally unstable go out to murder their assigned political enemies and the more stable ones waste their time on media.
The result is that one news outlet after another falls into the hands of people who have never even visited a newspaper or broadcast news studio.
No wonder our culture is going nuts.
And here I thought I had the 'Cynic of the Year' award all wrapped up.
Planning my speech - So many to thank. So little time.
And then along comes some associate professor - and he kicks my you-know- what. Ok, professor - You're unhappy. I'm unhappy. We're all unhappy.
Got it.
Now go grade some papers and be still.
Planning my speech - So many to thank. So little time.
And then along comes some associate professor - and he kicks my you-know- what. Ok, professor - You're unhappy. I'm unhappy. We're all unhappy.
Got it.
Now go grade some papers and be still.
1
An important and thought-provoking opinion that rings true in many respects. Hobbyism is indeed the Democrats' biggest problem, but what the author misses, is that it also uniquely their creation. In particular, their support of causes catering to the fringe instead of the mainstream which ultimately boiled-over in 2016, resulting in majority rejection of the party. Ad-hoc, without debate, without serious discourse, and continuing to date increasingly with heaps of ridicule and abuse.
All of which the author characterizes as hobbyism. Indeed, no discourse in a thriving and mature democracy of an advanced western country should go this far low, and when it does, bemoaning it as hobbyism is understandable. But premature. What's really at work here is the veering of the Democrat party to extreme left, beyond the tipping point. Egged-on by an equally left newspaper, that's not just completely lost way in recent years, but converted political reporting into a national blood sport, it's own news version of hobbyism. Giving rise to their little-known nemesis, Breitbart.
Hang a right at the next light, you'll be OK. Don't turn left because there's no more turning left except for a steep cliff. And it's a dead-end straight ahead. Somebody pass these directions over to whoever's calling him/herself a Democrat leader these days.
All of which the author characterizes as hobbyism. Indeed, no discourse in a thriving and mature democracy of an advanced western country should go this far low, and when it does, bemoaning it as hobbyism is understandable. But premature. What's really at work here is the veering of the Democrat party to extreme left, beyond the tipping point. Egged-on by an equally left newspaper, that's not just completely lost way in recent years, but converted political reporting into a national blood sport, it's own news version of hobbyism. Giving rise to their little-known nemesis, Breitbart.
Hang a right at the next light, you'll be OK. Don't turn left because there's no more turning left except for a steep cliff. And it's a dead-end straight ahead. Somebody pass these directions over to whoever's calling him/herself a Democrat leader these days.
1
Here's an article deriding people who participate in politics for the good of the country without a shred of data. There are certainly problems with how people participate as citizens today, but they are little different from the past. People in the past read the tabloids to get their daily information about politics, with very little difference from where they get it today. Apathy and lack of participation is probably a bigger problem than "hobbyism". Politicians spin the news just as they did one hundred years ago. This is one article that probably shouldn't have been published - where's the evidence? Where's the data? This could have been written in a few sentences. One man's opinion should be relegated to the Letters to the Editor!!!
If what I'm doing to oppose Trump is mere "hobbyism," why am I not enjoying it? Why am I doing it despite the debilitating anger that I feel. Why do I continue at the expense of work and play that I truly enjoy? Perhaps it's the smug columnists who are the hobbyists.
2
Now that you have told us (Democrats) everything we are doing wrong, and made up a silly label--hobbyism--to express your contempt for us, I assume you are planning a second offering to tell us what we should be doing.
I can't wait.
I can't wait.
2
An article with a portentous title that delivers nothing except a new cliche ("hobbyism") in several hundred repetitive words. BTW, a better word already exists, "dilettantism." And what the author is really talking about is "alienation" from just about everything which has been a curse for liberals since at least the 1950s ("absurdist" drama, Sartre, etc.) The paralysis of analysis is especially hard to overcome when you see nothing to be gained by participating. (Bernie's revolution of the simple minded? Give me a break.)
I agree with Bill D. below, voting is the MOST important thing Democrats need to do. As a member of a minority, we need to vote the most - but do not, I think partly because the Democratic Party has not shown why they should. Many figure one as bad as the other - we need to go to the trouble of actually showing why one is worse than the other. This goes for everyone-I know that I use Resistbot and other electronic methods to voice my opinion, but drag this 63 yer old to vote, and I don't drive, but i know why i should participate.
This writer hits it on the head. I've been left scratching my head over the fact that so many appear to have skipped out on high school civics classes - truly acting surprised at finding out how things actually work. I don't profess to know the reasons why but I find it unacceptable .... These groups that have popped up? I don't know if they have what it takes ... none of them seem to be 'for' anything, only anti -- (fill in the blank).
1
Spoken like a true armchair quarterback. I guess now we're supposed to call them hobbyists.
Are there ANY good ideas coming out of academia anymore?
Are there ANY good ideas coming out of academia anymore?
Another propaganda hatchet job from another liberal propaganda expert. I agree with the "political hobbyism" of the left. They want to end arguments by calling trigger words like racism, sexism, and whatever their useless list goes. They lack any real substance other than the Bernie group. Just shouting "not my president" and "Trump supporters are racists and sexists......" won't do. Bernie did come up with a lot of social and political issues, but the present liberals siding with the corporate democrats are nothing but zombies walking. I would surely add Black Lives Matter in this group, contrary to your position on that movement having any relevance. However, I completely disagree with the primaries' should be abolished. Countries like India doesn't have any primaries, and the nominees are elected based on family or political affiliation. If there were no primaries, Jeb Bush would have been the nominee, who can't even win his home state in the primary, leave alone the other states where he got trounced. The same with the Democrat side. Bernie would not have had any chance, considering the collusion inside the DNC. Primaries test whether the candidates really have support, and whether their own party people vote for that person. Trump won overwhelming and 63 million voted for him from different parts of America. Are you calling the intelligence and integrity of those people? I guess you are another delusional liberal from the liberal bubble.
1
I'll agree with you that primaries are important, and for the reason that you state. But that still doesn't take care of the Democrats' problem - the candidate that the party chooses in the primaries seems to have a rougher time winning in the general once the Independents have their say. So the party still essentially picks their candidate, and has the superdelegates just in case the rank and file disagrees. Open primaries and losing the superdelegates might give them a better shot in the general, but i suppose they'd rather lose to a Republican it than win it with the wrong Democrat.
1
Liberals seem to be more narcissistic than republicans. I think culturally, republicans are more happy to fall in line. Liberals, on the other hand, want to stand out, be the leader, and be the star of the show. Unfortunately, everyone can't be the start of the show. Followers are just as important as leaders.
"Then there are the well-intentioned policy innovations over the years that were meant to make politics more open but in doing so exposed politics to hobbyists...amateurs trying their hand at a game".
Yes, we must keep the unwashed masses out of political/economic decision-making, and leave it in the hands of qualified people - the elderly, white, out-of-touch with Main street members of the millionaires club, the US congress - the most undemocratic legislature in the developed world.
Yes, we must keep the unwashed masses out of political/economic decision-making, and leave it in the hands of qualified people - the elderly, white, out-of-touch with Main street members of the millionaires club, the US congress - the most undemocratic legislature in the developed world.
2
No, this is the price we pay for 40 years of worshiping "stupid" through movies, tv and Republican campaign tactics descrying college education as it leads people to vote for the other party. Not that Trump supporters are stupid, but we have been trained to vote with our guts, rather than our minds. Not a way to run a country
1
A muddled and inconsistent column. The definition and traits of “political hobbyism" changes from paragraph to paragraph to suit whatever data free point the author is trying to make.
As an associate professor of political science, I assume the author considers himself a "political professional". Perhaps lazy straw man arguments work in a classroom of students chasing an "A", but this "hobbyist" is not impressed.
As an associate professor of political science, I assume the author considers himself a "political professional". Perhaps lazy straw man arguments work in a classroom of students chasing an "A", but this "hobbyist" is not impressed.
1
politics today is a failure of sixth grade social studies.
1
Elections of 2009-10 just were not so scary as now. People believed that people who showed evidence of insanity or incompetence, logically wouldn't be able to get elected.
But now?
Agreed, "political hobbyism" is a self congratulating preoccupation, and America has never had such a president in office, never had such need to clamor for truthfulness and rationality, never had the fear that a president's incompetence could lead to a nuclear solution.
We thought who ever got elected, whether we agreed with him or not, would at least be competent and sane.
I appreciate this article reprimanding us readers that a tweet, a share, a comment on the NYT articles isn't going to cut it now.
WE HAVE TO ACT.
We have to go door to door and get folks registered to vote and explain to those already registered voters why their vote is so important.
And drive them to the polls if they can't get there themselves. Offer to baby sit the kids while they go. Take a casserole for the family so the parents can skip dinner and vote. Whatever it takes.
So hobbyists, let's get off our duffs and out into the streets proclaiming that Democracy is not dead, that we have opportunity and a duty to shape the nation in which we want to live.
It's hard work, but work I believe the American people are exceptionally qualified to do.
But now?
Agreed, "political hobbyism" is a self congratulating preoccupation, and America has never had such a president in office, never had such need to clamor for truthfulness and rationality, never had the fear that a president's incompetence could lead to a nuclear solution.
We thought who ever got elected, whether we agreed with him or not, would at least be competent and sane.
I appreciate this article reprimanding us readers that a tweet, a share, a comment on the NYT articles isn't going to cut it now.
WE HAVE TO ACT.
We have to go door to door and get folks registered to vote and explain to those already registered voters why their vote is so important.
And drive them to the polls if they can't get there themselves. Offer to baby sit the kids while they go. Take a casserole for the family so the parents can skip dinner and vote. Whatever it takes.
So hobbyists, let's get off our duffs and out into the streets proclaiming that Democracy is not dead, that we have opportunity and a duty to shape the nation in which we want to live.
It's hard work, but work I believe the American people are exceptionally qualified to do.
With all due respect, I think some of my co-commenters got offended at the outset reading this article and then became incapable of looking inside themselves to see if any of this could be true to themselves on a very basic and personal level. I am a Democrat (in a state where it really hurts to be one!) and I have been my whole life, but I have been doing a lot of soul-searching lately about not just the party, writ large, but also about my own behavior and "activism." I think there's a lot of truth in what the author is saying about hobbyism and I think it would behoove my fellow Dems to seriously reflect on what they've done and whether it actually made a difference. I spend more time than I would like to admit calling the offices of Senators Cotton and Boozman and in signing online and old-school paper petitions. I truly don't believe any of it has made the slightest difference in outcomes, but boy does that "activism" make me feel good at the time! I started to come to this hobbyism conclusion about myself (although I didn't call it that, I was calling it "feel-good" activism) about six weeks ago. So I decided that even though I've been putting what little money I have where my mouth is for many years, it was time for me to start actually going to our local Democrat meetings. I've gone to two so far. It's just a baby step, but I'm hoping that actually getting involved instead of just signing checks and petitions might eventually yield some real change. We'll see.
I'm guessing my comment will be considered hobbyism just as this article is hobbyism on the part of Professor Hersh.
No worries, I've already determined that engaging with others on the topic US politics is a meaningless exercise with no impact on my life. The political class will do what it wants without regard to my thoughts on a topic.
There is no reason to vote anymore.
No worries, I've already determined that engaging with others on the topic US politics is a meaningless exercise with no impact on my life. The political class will do what it wants without regard to my thoughts on a topic.
There is no reason to vote anymore.
1
If you think Americans taking a stand for their rights and freedoms in this administration is a hobby, you are making a specious argument.
We elect our U.S. Congress to represent us, and when we don't then we have to partake in political activism to make our voices heard. That is our motivation. Hobbies are for enjoyment. Political activism is for survival.
We elect our U.S. Congress to represent us, and when we don't then we have to partake in political activism to make our voices heard. That is our motivation. Hobbies are for enjoyment. Political activism is for survival.
1
Wow, this is an extraordinarily arrogant opinion piece. Is it hobbyism to denounce the political engagement of citizens in a NYTimes opinion piece? Or does the author believe this will effect meaningful change in some way?
There are numerous obstacles to meaningful political participation. Don't berate people for trying to find out what those are and do something about it. No one begins their political participation as a savvy professional.
There are numerous obstacles to meaningful political participation. Don't berate people for trying to find out what those are and do something about it. No one begins their political participation as a savvy professional.
4
I think this does provide insights into how political hobbyists like those who read this newspaper are so different than the actual electorate, which never seems to be paying attention to how issues affect them, culminating in the election of a reality show no-nothing. On the other hand, I don't think too many people would agree that we should go back to the days where smoke-filled rooms picked the candidates and voters only had any say over their government one day every four years.
It would seem that "political hobbyism," at a minimum, would lead to a knowledgeable vote. It appears to me that voter apathy is a bigger problem. How many people vote based on the sound bites they see on TV or radio? There must be a large number because money buys elections. How many people vote for a candidate just because they are a Republican or Democrat? I think it was Plato that said democracy requires work. Americans are comfortable and secure and they are not paying attention. Then they pat themselves on the back just for voting and we get a president like Donald Trump or a dysfunctional congress.
2
"[citizens] desperately want to do something, but not something that is boring, demanding or slow."
but do we want to vote?
the problem with participatory democracy is the lack of participation. actions are louder than words.
but do we want to vote?
the problem with participatory democracy is the lack of participation. actions are louder than words.
Oh, but clicking "like" and reposting pithy political memes is so gratifying and affords the illusion of action. It actually takes time and effort to get out there and register voters and phone back for candidates...
1
A professor of political science complains that the person who won the Republican primary process got to be the candidate of the party instead of the candidate being chosen by the party elite, one would image in a smoke filled room. So basically the problem is too much democracy? Especially if you don't like the outcome?
3
As can be discerned by the local commentariat, reflective introspection is as alien to liberals as free speech is to the modern american campus.
People used to sit in the town squares discussing politics. "Hobbyism," which I prefer to consider as "engagement/participation/civil discussion," is vital and necessary, not something to dismiss or make light of in any way.
We need to make voting more accessible with hours/days/voting centers in every town and we need to make voting mandatory.
We need to make voting more accessible with hours/days/voting centers in every town and we need to make voting mandatory.
2
He lost me with "In fact, it is not because of gerrymandering, Citizens United, cable news or any of the other common scapegoats that our system is broken". No its because of people who engage in politics but not the right kind of engagement. Sorry, I am not buying it.
4
I thought that in addition to voting, keeping myself informed, signing petitions, and contacting my representatives about issues that matter to me was my civic duty. I'm wrong? To be a good participant in democracy one should not participate? Or what, I'm participating too much, not enough?
I'd honestly like to do more, but most of us have limited time in our lives. That is why we elect (hire) people to take care of running the government. We're supposed to be able to trust them. We are also supposed to let them know what we think. It is especially problematic, of course, when the government is full of incompetent ill-meaning nincompoops who don't care what we think or want.
I'm not a political hobbyist. I would much prefer to have our government full of well-meaning, good people we can trust.
I'd honestly like to do more, but most of us have limited time in our lives. That is why we elect (hire) people to take care of running the government. We're supposed to be able to trust them. We are also supposed to let them know what we think. It is especially problematic, of course, when the government is full of incompetent ill-meaning nincompoops who don't care what we think or want.
I'm not a political hobbyist. I would much prefer to have our government full of well-meaning, good people we can trust.
3
It's easy to point to possible problems. What the author left out was solutions. It would have had more impact if new ideas were shared. Calling for neighbor-to-neighbor conversion just doesn't happen anymore. Let's have something useful.
1
This is yet another example of scapegoating problems that have been building up for decades on a new phenomena that has been around for a decade at most. The American political system has long been hijacked by the wealthy and it's only been getting worse.
Maybe the reason voters engage in political "hobby-ism" is because they've come to realize how meaningless their voice is and how little any individual without massive wealth is able to effect change.
Maybe the reason voters engage in political "hobby-ism" is because they've come to realize how meaningless their voice is and how little any individual without massive wealth is able to effect change.
5
Yeah, anyway...
The mid-terms seem quite far away right now, but don't forget to vote, folks.
The mid-terms seem quite far away right now, but don't forget to vote, folks.
1
Thank you for your excellent words and thoughts. If only there were a way to broadcast this column telepathically.
Blame the people; an elitist analysis.
2
Typical academic exercise. Trenchant analysis; absolutely nothing in the way of policy prescription. And because of that, useless.
There is some serious 'political hobbyism' in my neck of the woods, with a huge disproportionate amount of well off retirees. I call some of them P.I.P.s or Previously Important People. They come into our small coastal towns with a newfound, large amount of time on their hands. So what do they do? Get involved with town politics of course. It has turned the priorities towards elder-centric everything. And they think that since they pay taxes on their houses they rule in every way. It's not an equal opportunity bunch. I've found these mostly liberal Democrats to be some of the worst penny pinchers I have ever met. Many would shut down local schools in a heartbeat if they could.
But they ever expand the fire/police/emt depts. For a town of 3,000 the ratio to services is absurd. They want cops on every corner, fire trucks on every street and ambulances at the end of their driveways. Never can be too safe!
But any programs for local children, low income housing and fishermen are either reduced or blocked. They only want upscale poverty to exist in their adopted New England hamlets. Town meetings are always fun here.
But they ever expand the fire/police/emt depts. For a town of 3,000 the ratio to services is absurd. They want cops on every corner, fire trucks on every street and ambulances at the end of their driveways. Never can be too safe!
But any programs for local children, low income housing and fishermen are either reduced or blocked. They only want upscale poverty to exist in their adopted New England hamlets. Town meetings are always fun here.
3
Here's an experiment you can try.
When you talk to one of your firebrand liberal friends ask them about their experiences in terms of attending integrated public schools or living in a lower middle class or middle class neighborhood that is racially integrated. And no, I'm not talking about racially integrated by whites and Asians.
Then ask a political conservative the same questions.
Your sample population should be comprised of folks who have lived in a major metropolitan area or a large city.
Please do some back and tell us what you found.
When you talk to one of your firebrand liberal friends ask them about their experiences in terms of attending integrated public schools or living in a lower middle class or middle class neighborhood that is racially integrated. And no, I'm not talking about racially integrated by whites and Asians.
Then ask a political conservative the same questions.
Your sample population should be comprised of folks who have lived in a major metropolitan area or a large city.
Please do some back and tell us what you found.
1
I did not read one comment that took responsibility for the current state of politics. I am saddened by what I'm reading from adults.
The problem is that "civic duty and self-interest do not capture the ways that MIDDLE- and UPPER-CLASS (my emphasis) Americans are engaging in politics"? You mean the rest of us don't count? That's rather a sweeping dismissal.
2
What Hersh describes as being a "hobbyist" most American would consider their birthright and one of the most important defining characteristics of our society. We're not a nation state like France or England with a pretense that we have 1,000+ year national histories. We come here (or are descended from people who came here) from all over the world and the social glue that attempts to hold us together is the various "Freedoms" (speech, religion etc. .) that we’re taught made America Great. (Sorry for that unfortunate phrase.) Any 3rd grader will tell you, "This is a free country."
The so-called "hobbyists" (on the left and the right) are simply engaging in that most American of traditions: complaining about public affairs. Tough partisan rhetoric is as old as Thomas Jefferson. Politics is a spectator sport. The Lincoln-Douglas debates attracted tens of thousand to watch politic al combat.
Vigorous debate is the best precursor political action. The Civil Rights and Anti-Vietnam War movements were isolated, minority movements that "talked to themselves" before bursting onto the national stage with powerful consequences.
The so-called "hobbyists" (on the left and the right) are simply engaging in that most American of traditions: complaining about public affairs. Tough partisan rhetoric is as old as Thomas Jefferson. Politics is a spectator sport. The Lincoln-Douglas debates attracted tens of thousand to watch politic al combat.
Vigorous debate is the best precursor political action. The Civil Rights and Anti-Vietnam War movements were isolated, minority movements that "talked to themselves" before bursting onto the national stage with powerful consequences.
5
Party leaders choosing candidates is part of the problem. How exactly does that engage anyone to participate? And it is not democracy.
4
Hillary was selected by party hacks.
1
I respectfully disagree with your view on political parties choosing their candidates. Without the power of selecting suitable, electable candidates, a political party is not a party. Political parties, all through modern democracies, select their candidates for office. A citizen can join the party of their choice, and participate on the county and state level, influencing policy and having a true say. It isn't sexy, but participation in politics just doesn't happen every 4 years, it's an ongoing, and at times, a tedious process. Democracy is messy.
This article outlines all the ways the author thinks other people "do it wrong" but does not fully assert how to "do it right."
6
America is a sports loving nation, and for a great many Americans politics is like sports - they root for one team or another without paying attention or much regard for details, often rooting for the same party their parents did. They pay more attention to their favorite football team.
3
The premise is interesting but there's no proof the parties were not in control of these candidates. The fault is not with binding primaries or hobbyists - the fault is with the leadership of the parties who have made their profession repellant to ethical intelligent electable potential candidates. The problems are top down, not bottom up. Fox news and the crudity of reality tv could not have taken over the GOP without its leadership's invitation. No member of the public forced the Dems to enthusiastically run the one politician least likely to win over the opposition. It was as if each candidate in the election was chosen precisely to insult the other side. So here we are.
2
have you exempted fake CNN news?
Feel-good issues and virtue signaling dominate politics because, frankly, most of the day-to-day business of politics is too complicated for Americans to understand. Democrats don't understand math, and Republicans can't deal with complexity.
Put them together and you get an electorate that doesn't understand how the fake numbers are made and how laws affect real life.
It is, however, better than other systems, at least so far.
Put them together and you get an electorate that doesn't understand how the fake numbers are made and how laws affect real life.
It is, however, better than other systems, at least so far.
1
Open primaries contribute to widening the partisan divide. In the era before open primaries, the Dem's choice for president was not the choice of individual Democratic voters. He (always he) was just the guy the party picked. Same for the Republican. It wasn't betrayal to vote for the other guy if you liked him better, because they both both just two dudes chosen in smoke-filled rooms. The requirement to pander to the more-engaged base in the primary process also widens the partisan divide. The GOP has been radicalized precisely because its representatives are generally more afraid of being primaried by their base than being voted out in a general election.
4
Did you mean open primaries where voters don't have to be registered to the party, or binding primaries where the results dictate delegates to support a candidate, at least initially ?
Local politics is so much about property use and value.
As a landlord, I have a direct monetary interest in local politics in a way that I know my tenants just do not have. To them it's a bit of an abstraction, because how many of them deal directly with the building department, traffic department, zoning, etc?
The people that own property--especially property that generates income--are just naturally going to be more engaged in local politics, and guess who owns more of that kind of property: conservatives.
As a landlord, I have a direct monetary interest in local politics in a way that I know my tenants just do not have. To them it's a bit of an abstraction, because how many of them deal directly with the building department, traffic department, zoning, etc?
The people that own property--especially property that generates income--are just naturally going to be more engaged in local politics, and guess who owns more of that kind of property: conservatives.
3
Eitan Hersh stated: "More than ever, they [Democrats] are watching cable news, and refreshing Twitter and Facebook feeds." . . . What? "More than ever" before in history? . . . Huh?
According to the Federal Communications Commission, "cable television subscriptions in the US peaked around the year 2000, at 68.5 million total subscriptions. Since then, cable subscriptions have been in slow decline, dropping to 54.4 million subscribers by December 2013." Cable news viewership mirrors this subscriber decline; the viewership is shrinking. According to the Pew Research Center, Millennials (a generational unit which politically leans leftward) avoid cable news. Likewise, although roughly two-thirds of Baby Boomers (a generational unit which leans conservative) watch cable news, this demographic bloc is dwindling as an audience share.
Furthermore, as for increasingly refreshing our "Facebook feeds," what year is Mr. Hersh living in? A recent article in Slate magazine noted that Facebook post sharing has been in decline since 2013. Additionally, since Winter 2016, liberal Facebook users have retreated from the unpleasant reality of Trump's America by *avoiding* news feeds. A 2017 article by Fortune reported many "Facebook users are sharing less" and "avoiding news feeds."
Since Hersh wishes to lecture Democrats about their "behavior," perhaps he should spend more time researching their recent behavior and less time writing op-eds based on outdated misconceptions about society.
According to the Federal Communications Commission, "cable television subscriptions in the US peaked around the year 2000, at 68.5 million total subscriptions. Since then, cable subscriptions have been in slow decline, dropping to 54.4 million subscribers by December 2013." Cable news viewership mirrors this subscriber decline; the viewership is shrinking. According to the Pew Research Center, Millennials (a generational unit which politically leans leftward) avoid cable news. Likewise, although roughly two-thirds of Baby Boomers (a generational unit which leans conservative) watch cable news, this demographic bloc is dwindling as an audience share.
Furthermore, as for increasingly refreshing our "Facebook feeds," what year is Mr. Hersh living in? A recent article in Slate magazine noted that Facebook post sharing has been in decline since 2013. Additionally, since Winter 2016, liberal Facebook users have retreated from the unpleasant reality of Trump's America by *avoiding* news feeds. A 2017 article by Fortune reported many "Facebook users are sharing less" and "avoiding news feeds."
Since Hersh wishes to lecture Democrats about their "behavior," perhaps he should spend more time researching their recent behavior and less time writing op-eds based on outdated misconceptions about society.
7
We are suffering from an excess of democracy. When party leaders and bosses selected candidates for their competence, experience, and moderation--as they did before 1972--the parties nominated men who turned out on the whole to be good enough presidents. After the party reforms, the quality declined and with Trump we've hit rock bottom.
We have also suffered from a populist revolt on the left and the right.
We have also suffered from a populist revolt on the left and the right.
2
Oddly, prof. Hersh appears to be scapegoating "hobbyists".
It is not wrong for people to become more engaged in the political process and dialog, and for people to think for themselves.
The problem is not that "professionals" have lost control of the political narratives in play in politics today. In fact, post-Iraq, such centralized control of the narrative is rightly viewed with suspicion.
Thousands of people died and continue to die due to the triumph of false, irrational narratives and poor vetting by the professional media; and there has been no accounting. The same professional people (neocons/regime change advocates) who advanced such truly deadly & disastrous narratives are still peddling their manipulations on privileged perches within the same news organizations. There is been less condemnation of those behind these truly disastrous foreign policy disasters and deaths, than due to immature tweets.
The real problem is the "hyper-ideological" nature of our political dialog. This GOP-Dem tribalism erodes non-partisan analysis of issues. It gives a free pass to put flawed or corrupt agendas on a widely varied political platforms that engage in (left/right) identity politics, where loyal political tribalists are psychologically manipulated to defend cruft along with the shallow appeals to social wedge issues.
It is not wrong for people to become more engaged in the political process and dialog, and for people to think for themselves.
The problem is not that "professionals" have lost control of the political narratives in play in politics today. In fact, post-Iraq, such centralized control of the narrative is rightly viewed with suspicion.
Thousands of people died and continue to die due to the triumph of false, irrational narratives and poor vetting by the professional media; and there has been no accounting. The same professional people (neocons/regime change advocates) who advanced such truly deadly & disastrous narratives are still peddling their manipulations on privileged perches within the same news organizations. There is been less condemnation of those behind these truly disastrous foreign policy disasters and deaths, than due to immature tweets.
The real problem is the "hyper-ideological" nature of our political dialog. This GOP-Dem tribalism erodes non-partisan analysis of issues. It gives a free pass to put flawed or corrupt agendas on a widely varied political platforms that engage in (left/right) identity politics, where loyal political tribalists are psychologically manipulated to defend cruft along with the shallow appeals to social wedge issues.
12
A key problem is the way political reporters cover the election---it covered by the same kinds of reporters who would cover a sporting event-- a sports contest with teams, not a contest of ideas.
We had a perfect test in this past election.
One candidate spouted slogans (it's going to be great! you're going to like it!) and crowd-pleasing lines (build the wall!) and did not take voters' questions.
The other took the time to do the hard work of someone who believes in, and has worked hard in, government---to network with a wide range of people and to propose detailed policy proposals.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
The sports political reporters began each TV interview with Clinton asking about emails---never took the time to read through or ask probing questions about policy, not even after her many in-depth talks about everything from job creation to national security.
When voters asked questions ranging from the tragic effect of the opioid epidemic to gun violence, to health care, few reporters wrote about Clinton's answers to these questions of serious impact on voters, but rather complained that she did not answer their shouted email questions.
Although a major decision about the direction of the country was being decided in the election, the political press completely failed to report about it, and so the election came down to whether the "team" was a candidate who was "likable" (for the woman) or "told it like it is" (even if it was a lie)" for Trump.
We had a perfect test in this past election.
One candidate spouted slogans (it's going to be great! you're going to like it!) and crowd-pleasing lines (build the wall!) and did not take voters' questions.
The other took the time to do the hard work of someone who believes in, and has worked hard in, government---to network with a wide range of people and to propose detailed policy proposals.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
The sports political reporters began each TV interview with Clinton asking about emails---never took the time to read through or ask probing questions about policy, not even after her many in-depth talks about everything from job creation to national security.
When voters asked questions ranging from the tragic effect of the opioid epidemic to gun violence, to health care, few reporters wrote about Clinton's answers to these questions of serious impact on voters, but rather complained that she did not answer their shouted email questions.
Although a major decision about the direction of the country was being decided in the election, the political press completely failed to report about it, and so the election came down to whether the "team" was a candidate who was "likable" (for the woman) or "told it like it is" (even if it was a lie)" for Trump.
327
I agree wholeheartedly with your letter. I think the media, in general, are guilty of only covering the easy negatives of the campaign. Their excuse? "That is what the public want."
The problem with their view is that I don't control how they write their stories. I can only read the article or video news item they produce. It is a catch-22 with very damaging results.
The problem with their view is that I don't control how they write their stories. I can only read the article or video news item they produce. It is a catch-22 with very damaging results.
7
Yes, elections are covered like sports events, and it starts with the fund raising. Which future nominee does the big money really approve of? Who is raising the most from corporate donors? These are the ones the media covers the most. The public is most familiar with them, not with the lowest fund raisers---and those might be the ones more responsive to citizen's interests, not big donor interests.
The 1 candidate that raised millions from small citizen donors who saw that he was representing their crucial interests, was ignored, than dissed and sidelined by the media, especially the NY Times.
What else proves that big money makes our policies, than that all other developed nations have had universal h/c for generations? They don't turn over their elections for funding to the medical, banking, oil industries etc. What corruption they have is illegal, not legal like here, thanks to our Court.
Right now, the media obsessively discusses the power plays and dramas of Trump and congress, but still doesn't explain issues, debate alternative policies, and educate the public. What's most avoided is any comparison to other operating democracies, how they can work for citizens, because they don't have a big money style election system, with campaigns lasting almost 2 years.
That's all kept dark in American media. Works very well to entrench our system, with little challenge.
The 1 candidate that raised millions from small citizen donors who saw that he was representing their crucial interests, was ignored, than dissed and sidelined by the media, especially the NY Times.
What else proves that big money makes our policies, than that all other developed nations have had universal h/c for generations? They don't turn over their elections for funding to the medical, banking, oil industries etc. What corruption they have is illegal, not legal like here, thanks to our Court.
Right now, the media obsessively discusses the power plays and dramas of Trump and congress, but still doesn't explain issues, debate alternative policies, and educate the public. What's most avoided is any comparison to other operating democracies, how they can work for citizens, because they don't have a big money style election system, with campaigns lasting almost 2 years.
That's all kept dark in American media. Works very well to entrench our system, with little challenge.
This piece is an excellent illustration of what is wrong with our country. One can find not one fresh idea in this piece. Nothing! Zilch! Participatory democracy does not have to look like the caricature that the author provides. There is no indication that he has ever seriously thought about a new political model; and neither have our politicians.
We have to rethink our political model and political philosophy. We have to rethink what constitutes political leadership and the role of leaders. The author gives no indication that such rethinking is in order. Is it surprising that he offers no new ideas? What’s new about politics as moral obligation? No, politics should offer ordinary people space for realization of their creative potential; and realizing one's creative potential is a profoundly gratifying experience. It's fun.
What’s new about political leaders vetting candidates for various positions of leadership? Could one imagine a different process? For example, how about leaders helping common citizens involved in the public sphere in the process of the formation of their political will and opinion? The author's snide and gratuitous remarks about “political hobbyism” reveal the same elitist condescension toward common people that has brought upon us the problems we face in politics today. Our elitist political leaders and their ideologues are bankrupt and they try to put the blame for their bankruptcy on the common people.
We have to rethink our political model and political philosophy. We have to rethink what constitutes political leadership and the role of leaders. The author gives no indication that such rethinking is in order. Is it surprising that he offers no new ideas? What’s new about politics as moral obligation? No, politics should offer ordinary people space for realization of their creative potential; and realizing one's creative potential is a profoundly gratifying experience. It's fun.
What’s new about political leaders vetting candidates for various positions of leadership? Could one imagine a different process? For example, how about leaders helping common citizens involved in the public sphere in the process of the formation of their political will and opinion? The author's snide and gratuitous remarks about “political hobbyism” reveal the same elitist condescension toward common people that has brought upon us the problems we face in politics today. Our elitist political leaders and their ideologues are bankrupt and they try to put the blame for their bankruptcy on the common people.
7
I am not an American but I don't think the problem is hobbyism it is language.
George Orwell in his political essays taught us how to talk about politics.
When even our political scientist use words that have no meaning like conservative libertarian, liberal , democracy, communism, socialism politics becomes a hobby and not the dynamic discussion that understanding that the words are modifiers of America's essential ideology of neoliberalism.
The debate is 2500 years old but instead of discussing what is the best way to grow our economy, our technology an our wealth of goods and services we need to start asking everybody what they really want.
I talk politics with everybody and I am overwhelmed at how little interest what is called political discourse has for most people. It is only when one talks about the meaning of our lives in contributing to social well-being that everybody is engaged.
People love politics and it is when they realize that politics is more important than faith and religion in their lives that they become truly engaged. Politics is about how we live our lives not how we present ourselves to the world.
Socrates and Jesus were condemned for their politics not for their beliefs.
Politics has become a hobby because it is now the shadows on the wall of the cave. Neither liberals nor conservative will lose their children because they cannot access healthcare.
George Orwell in his political essays taught us how to talk about politics.
When even our political scientist use words that have no meaning like conservative libertarian, liberal , democracy, communism, socialism politics becomes a hobby and not the dynamic discussion that understanding that the words are modifiers of America's essential ideology of neoliberalism.
The debate is 2500 years old but instead of discussing what is the best way to grow our economy, our technology an our wealth of goods and services we need to start asking everybody what they really want.
I talk politics with everybody and I am overwhelmed at how little interest what is called political discourse has for most people. It is only when one talks about the meaning of our lives in contributing to social well-being that everybody is engaged.
People love politics and it is when they realize that politics is more important than faith and religion in their lives that they become truly engaged. Politics is about how we live our lives not how we present ourselves to the world.
Socrates and Jesus were condemned for their politics not for their beliefs.
Politics has become a hobby because it is now the shadows on the wall of the cave. Neither liberals nor conservative will lose their children because they cannot access healthcare.
1
What basically is wrong with our way of making and administering laws at the federal level is built into the antiquated sytem itself. All new laws can be orginated or blocked in either of two legislative chambers -- the Senate where a state like Wyoming has the same representation as California with 73 times as many citizens, and the House of Representative where gerrymandering skews districts into bizarre shapes intended to favor one party or the other. All laws are administered under the direction of a President, like our present one, who can claim office while trailing his closest opponent by 3 million votes.
What chance has the public of exercising their preference at the polls in a system as bad as that? It cannot be changed because of the vested interests of entrenched politicos.
What chance has the public of exercising their preference at the polls in a system as bad as that? It cannot be changed because of the vested interests of entrenched politicos.
10
Couldn't agree more. And our system is structurally difficult to change.
2
very misleading title. participatory democracy refers to systems where the people get to vote directly on the issues and agreements/rules. Author is talking about participating in activities to influence representatives - which is great if you like demonstrations to express anger.
our representative democracy is functioing like a broken wheel. with the internet we wil be able to create a more participatory democracy -- sooner than you would expect.
our representative democracy is functioing like a broken wheel. with the internet we wil be able to create a more participatory democracy -- sooner than you would expect.
We do not live nor was it ever intended that we live in any American 'participatory democracy'. Read the US Constitution and any excellent comprehensive modern American history book.
Our Founding Father's feared democracy so much that they only intended that white Anglo-Saxon Protestant men who owned property were divinely naturally created equal with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Our divided limited powered republic originally intended direct democratic election only for the House of Representatives. The Constitution had to be amended to allow direct election of US Senators. And the Electoral College stands between our vote and the election of the next President of United States. While a Presidential nomination and the advice and consent of the Senate stands between our democratic vote and a lifetime federal judicial nomination.
Our Founding Father's feared democracy so much that they only intended that white Anglo-Saxon Protestant men who owned property were divinely naturally created equal with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Our divided limited powered republic originally intended direct democratic election only for the House of Representatives. The Constitution had to be amended to allow direct election of US Senators. And the Electoral College stands between our vote and the election of the next President of United States. While a Presidential nomination and the advice and consent of the Senate stands between our democratic vote and a lifetime federal judicial nomination.
8
The Founding Fathers most likely remain among the most intelligent and insightful of Americans ever. They studied and understood history and appreciated that "democracy" can devolve into "ochlocracy" (Greek for rule of masses or mobs). The American constitution is the reason the US is the most successful country in the world so far. Strategic choices can make or break individuals, families, teams, groups, societies, etc. A stark example is successful autocratic China at one extreme and corrupt, impoverished India (a self advertised old democracy) at the other.
There is much to be said for the claim here that Democrats must be more active in person-to-person, and party support, as opposed to what the writer calls, politicall hobbyism. I have been for years active in the party a have served as in various minor party positions, and it is so true that serious activism is lacking. How often have we struggled to entice registered Democrats to join a club, or become involved in the local couty DCC. In spire of being old fashioned and traditional it is via these tried and true devices that Democrats must work.
'Facebook Activism' is not activism, it is merely the ego gratifying itself to assuage the guilt associated with the very real problems facing all of us. When I worked on last Fall's election, many people responded that "voting doesn't matter" or some similar excuse. I always responded, "Voting is the least you can do."
Most people that care about legalizing marijuana will eagerly post on social media, preach to the choir about the need for changes in the law, and then sink in to the couch and quickly give up.
Now, I just avoid social media, and I only read the news once a week. I have found great solace in ignoring everything and everyone. Once an idealist, an activist for over a decade, I feel there is nothing I can do. We are no better than Lemmings.
The best solution: find an enlightened king or queen or other gendered majesty and clone them until our species destroys itself.
Most people that care about legalizing marijuana will eagerly post on social media, preach to the choir about the need for changes in the law, and then sink in to the couch and quickly give up.
Now, I just avoid social media, and I only read the news once a week. I have found great solace in ignoring everything and everyone. Once an idealist, an activist for over a decade, I feel there is nothing I can do. We are no better than Lemmings.
The best solution: find an enlightened king or queen or other gendered majesty and clone them until our species destroys itself.
2
The problem with participatory democracy is it hasn't ever really been tried. When people are excluded due to their race, gender, religious inclination or for any other reason, then you don't really have a democracy. As the franchise has included more and more previously excluded groups, the powers-that-be have made sure that fewer and fewer decisions are made with public input until we reach the Orwellian situation in which we live today. I suggest Times readers try this on for size:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/why-not-have-a-randomly-selected-...
Democracy is much too important to be outsourced to politicians. I would have thought a political science professor would know that. And I would have been wrong.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/why-not-have-a-randomly-selected-...
Democracy is much too important to be outsourced to politicians. I would have thought a political science professor would know that. And I would have been wrong.
2
Something like a wise balance between convention delegates chosen by primary voters and delegates who are party functionaries (already elected to be Congresspersons, governors, state legislatures, party commiteefolk). Oh, the Democrats already do that? Well, just don't call them "superdelegates."