Changing the world
Today NION hosted a “Festival of Resistance” at the UH Campus Center. I didn’t stay to hear many of the speeches, but I helped set up a table for PDH and heard bits and pieces as I went back and forth. One speech really saddened me. It was made by a woman that I got to know a bit when we worked together on the Kucinich campaign a couple years ago. We often manned tables together and she and I registered several people to vote and even got some to sign Democratic Party cards so that they could vote in the presidential preference poll (Hawaii’s version of a presidential primary).
Today she gave a speech about how voting doesn’t matter. It makes me sad to think that she became so disillusioned after the last election that she is choosing not to vote any more. 
Her argument is that more can get done on the street than ever gets done by voting. I don’t agree and have been devoting a lot of my time to “working within the system.” I believe she and I have similar end-goals, yet we have completely oppposite strategies.
I would like to hear what you think… What is the best way to “change the world” or at least a small part of it? Working within the system or working the streets while completely shunning the system.
![[PDA - Heathcare NOT Warfare - Sign the Petition.]](http://pdamerica.org/images/ads/HealthNotWar_final.jpg)
I think we have to “walk on two legs.” This is what the National PDA is talking about with their “Inside/Outside” strategy. Politicians like to think that they are acting according to their own values, plus the testimony and other input they receive. But they operate in a political context. When their is evidence of strong public opinion, especially anger, over a policy, politiicans will respond to that anger. Those that tend to agree with the sentiment expressed on the streets will (hopefully) become a bit more emboldened to act on their beliefs. Those who disagree with the street action may harden their opposition. Those in the middle, or for whom the issue is not a priority, will tend to gravitate towards what they perceive as the strong public opinion IF they believe it is widespread.
But some people take the anti-politician view and say that “street action” is all that matters. That’s ridiculous. It’s like having a toolbox with only one tool in it. Or, for you leisure class folks, its like having a golf bag with only one type of club. They also do not want to follow the real, practical logic of their strategy. If you create “street heat” AND if those demos managed to move public opinion in your direction, the payoff is when the politicians adopt policies and vote in accordance with those demos. They may do it for good reasons, or they may do it out of fear (I exaggerate the level of “fear” involved, but this is to speak to the self-styled “radicals” who think they are scary to the system.) If the politicians DO NOT respond positively, then the street action is simply self-gratification. Unless, of course, it is meant to build up revolutionary consciousness or forces, in which case it is probably delusional under current conditions.
Those organizing demonstrations and those trrying to affect elections and legislation SHOULD have ties of communication and be capable of joint actions. They can be mutually reinforcing and the relationship can be symbiotic. And if the two types are not CONSCIOUSLY willing to work together in this reinforcing way, that may not be a problem, as there is an objective relationship anyways.
To rely upon one approach while disdaining the other, is onesided. If I had a bit more time, I would google for the Fredrick Douglas quote about those who say they want reform while deprecating agitation… etc.
For myself, I don’t want to be a Party hack, nor a legislative aide, nor a policy wonk. But nor do I want to be a misguided revolutionary living in a fantasy world. Frankly, I think the most effective reformers are those that remain skeptical, while avoiding cynicism about others AND within themselves.
Enough pontificating.
Pau!
Comment by bartman — September 13, 2006 @ 5:29 pm
voting is necessary. it is part of our democratic system of government and is the simplest and most direct way to participate in that system. however, i don’t pretend to believe that it is a meaningful instrument by which to bring about positive, substantive change. most times, we are presented with cookie-cutter candidates who will pander to the electorate for their job (or a chance at the job), but as soon as the election is over, will begin pandering to the lobbies and corporations. a citizen’s voice in the voting booth is not much louder than a whisper.
the shouting voices come from the streets, from the activists…. until we get ALL money out of the political process, we will not have candidates of substantial character and so our voice will be nothing more than a choice between the lesser of who cares.
….i have strong feelings regarding this topic, but have been unable to formulate my thoughts beyond what is here. my brain is currently cluttered with other stuff. i will continue to think about a more detailed ‘comment.’ in the meantime, i did feel the need to say something.
Comment by frosty — September 14, 2006 @ 10:52 am