One fact on which all parties and their various factions can agree: the U.S. representative democracy is primarily representing those who are donating massive sums to politicians – not everyday people. Cheers to shared political beliefs. We have a starting point.
President Obama’s second term was not-so-quietly prefaced with the reorganization of his massive campaign operation; changing into what is basically a policy-pushing machine for the President’s agenda: Organizing for Action. Can the most sophisticated campaign in history become the model to break the apathy of the average citizen’s involvement in politics and the corporate strong-hold on politics?
“In the beginning” this country was, at best, a biased version of representative democracy. A government in which only privileged white men were allowed to vote for the people who would represent them. With that facet being the voters: those already running the show… it likely was an accurately-reflected representative government. However, as time progressed and we realized that phrases like “all men are created equal” ought not be narrowly defined… more and more people realized the right to vote… resulting in fewer and fewer of us actually being represented. Today, the majority of the voters aren’t the voters actually being represented in Washington, D.C., and while many of us complain about it every day, there’s basically been “not a damn thing” we could do about it… other than ranting blog posts and calling neighbors during elections.
Will Organizing for Action result in “more” democracy for the United States?
In very recent history we have seen governments overthrown, literally, by means of advancing social technology and its ability to organize the under-represented members of a society. Why not take it one step further and finally use that sort of technology and technique to actually operate a proper, representative democracy? Up until now… most unfortunately… the best that most US politicians have been able to do with modern technology is post rather embarrassing photos of themselves. The brains behind the Obama campaigns think they can move politics beyond the occasional rude tweet.
Many politicians and their campaigns are “on twitter” and have facebook pages (of which they are quite proud, no doubt), but in truth they have no idea whatsoever what to do with those resources. They know the what, but fail miserably at the how (a common syndrome also often seen in single-children or trust-fund kids who inherit or buy the what without ever learning the how). The Obama Campaign figured out “all that social media and technology stuff,” and won two national election as a result. Even when put against the most obscene amount of corporate spending in human history… they still managed to fulfill what the people wanted, not just what the corporate interests and their hired representatives inside the Beltway desire.
This big question: will something that is designed to get people out “all at once” to win an election be effective at creating and maintaining ongoing political engagement? Can it motivate enough Americans to actually achieve progressive policy?
In American politics, after national elections 95% of citizens recoil back to the safety of what’s comfortable: to that bubble of things with which they agree. When it comes to politics, once every 4 years does the average bloke poke his head out of the cave long enough to maybe… just maybe… learn something new about policy and political parties (this is true for both sides of the ideological mote). Given such an enormous impasse of apathy: can the techniques and technology that got a president elected be successfully transferred into a machine that can constantly motivate the public? Can it be a momentum machine capable of changing the decision criteria that have been used in American politics since its inception? If any organization can, then Jim Messina, Jon Carson and Organizing for Action seem to have the best chance…. and it’s a keen idea.
It’s not as though the attempt is unprecedented, however. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of “bold” organizations on both sides whose very existence is to push policy agendas. Thus far, there has been little net benefit. Usually success is over-claimed, influence underwhelming, and true motivations veiled by the tax code and campaign contribution loopholes.
We Must Give Credit Were It’s Due: Organizing for Action is a Bright Idea
I doubt anyone can find fault in the idea that people who live in a country should be more involved in their government. Even if you embrace feudalism, you can’t deny that as an ideal, Organizing for Action is in a good place ethically speaking. If an extreme republican doesn’t like O for A, then it’s because of his/her inability to separate their hate for Obama from something that’s actually good for the country – hate and fear are hard habits to break no matter how many times they’re disproven. Some day, One Day, they’ll let go of all the fear-bred-hate and stop being so blinded by it. If an extreme democrat loves O of A without question… then they love Obama too much, and learn to be just as weary of how it promotes policy just as much as they are weary of American Crossroads – even the most ethical of ideas can be corrupted by us humans who have it in our DNA to stockpile for the winter.
Obama’s legacy will clearly be a very complex one. Much of it will stem from what he’s done as President and how he did it. Much will stem from who he is and how he got there. And now, how… inspiring, really, that part of that legacy might very well be bringing American democracy, even if just a little bit, back to the people and away from corporate interests.
This idea is much more than a presidential library… it would mean changing how our government functions, and how our people view our responsibilities as citizens. It means changing for whom the government really works. It would mean politicians won’t be able to rig the election system as easily. It would mean more people would be educated on policy that has an impact on their lives. It means that all us of might just belief a wee bit less of the bullshit that gets thrown out every day by the media trying to sell advertising and ghost-written-revisions of history books. It would mean giving the power back to the people… not all of it, but just maybe enough power to make all of us better and more involved citizens… keep us active in a positive way not just in name calling. It would mean possibly uprooting the decades of entrenched biases that the professional politicians and lobbyists have manufactured to serve their own ends because we take it upon ourselves to find out the truth for ourselves, not immediately believe what we think we’re supposed to believe based almost entirely on where were were born, where we live, and how much money we make. It could make us all better, more responsible, and more involved citizens. What a neat idea.
