New research on "the disaffected electorate" and how to engage people in the long process of revitalizing civic life. Plus a quick take on the good news coming out of Maine.
Wonderful summary of that research - kudos, Micah! Your readers may be interested in this webinar on "What Sways Working-Class Voters" which will be similarly research-based: xhttps://www.eventbrite.com/e/1992595488746?aff=oddtdtcreator
Thank you for shining a light on this important research and the value of building belonging. Community organizing takes time, but it's the only way out of the mess we're in. This work must continue regardless of who wins or loses in November.
This is classic community organizing - bringing neighbors together, identifying their top issues to advocate for, and developing leadership.
It works great when there are great local leaders like Rev. Edwards. But without great leaders, it doesn't happen.
The role of foundation funding is to fund leaders who prove themselves in battle. But I don't think any foundation can identify potential leaders in a nation of 340 million.
I'm very curious how much disaffection has been intentionally implanted by a political entity determined to remove concerned citizens from the civically engaged world. The primary theme behind the disaffection seems to be distrust in government. Which means that if you wanted to alienate people, you'd simply need to create distrust in government.
Presuming there's some validity to this hypothesis, I think one thing that might help re-engage the disaffected is to help them see that their disaffection is actually a desired outcome for one party, and their dissatisfaction and distrust in government have been cultivated for this very reason. When people realize - at a deep level - that they've been conned, that's when people can connect with their rightful indignation.
Given that a large segment of the population has also been led to distrust "mainstream media," as though being mainstream is somehow flawed per se, swaying them through the very vehicle that's been weaponized is unlikely to succeed. Thus, reconnection and re-belonging are likely the best recovery pathway. But the belonging needs to be with an undertaking that has an aim greater than the group's existence; otherwise, it's just a country club meet-up.
I believe a fundamental emphasis on returning to our roots - the Founders' vision and the core values and aspirations that we've defined ourselves by - ought to be high on our list. We need a zeal that resembles a civil religion (endorsed by the Founders in various ways), one whose devotion is to our principle charter, promising an active commitment to its support, protection, and strengthening.
The problem isn't that the wrong people are operating the machine. The problem is the machine.
Voters can elect politicians who promise “healthcare as a right,” “affordable housing,” higher taxes on billionaires, corporate regulation, or whatever else happens to be fashionable. But every such promise ultimately requires the same thing: political aggression over peaceful individuals—taxation, inflation, borrowing, regulation, and government control of property and voluntary exchange.
Freedom and prosperity doesn't come from finding better rulers. It comes from removing the power of rulers to dictate how peaceful individuals may live, work, trade, save, invest, and dispose of their own property.
The political class offers you a choice of masters and calls it democracy.
Liberty begins when you stop looking for better masters.
I'm deeply grateful for how well you’ve landed the waning hope coupled with the remedy of relational (vs. transactional) organizing on the path toward reviving Democracy. The distinction (and remedy) reminds me of Martin Buber’s I-Thou (authentic) vs. I-It (transactional) relationship – the latter antithetical to our deeply human desire for belonging.
In 1980, I was asked to join the political party implementing the 1971 Powell Memo – what over time became the interconnected, cohesive, and aligned Authoritarian Ecosystem confronting us today. I declined.
In the context of both 1) that Authoritarian ecosystem and 2) the significance of the relational organizing described here, a question arises that I’d love to explore - whether in this community or elsewhere, as appropriate - is: As we build the relational foundation at the local level, how do we connect a thousand of those foundations into something at a scale sufficient to deliver a U.S. Democracy that works for People & Planet for the 21st Century?
Regarding the apparently forthcoming nomination of Troy Jackson in Maine, something about how the situation unfolded doesn't add up. The Maine Democratic Party, which has every appearance of being a typical grouping of career-oriented political insiders and, per The Lever, "is mostly funded by large out-of-state donors, including the national Democratic Party committees," is about to replace Platner with Jackson, a candidate who shares Platner's most important populist positions and was endorsed in an earlier gubernatorial primary by the Maine D.S.A. The Washington Post just ran an article yesterday saying, "Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) declined Tuesday to endorse Troy Jackson, who is expected to become his party’s nominee in Maine to face Sen. Susan Collins (R) in a crucial Senate race."
This actually doesn't make sense. It couldn't have been reasonably predicted that the Maine Democratic Party would choose Jackson. I wonder if some behind-the-scenes arrangement was worked out leading to this result.
Wonderful summary of that research - kudos, Micah! Your readers may be interested in this webinar on "What Sways Working-Class Voters" which will be similarly research-based: xhttps://www.eventbrite.com/e/1992595488746?aff=oddtdtcreator
Thank you for shining a light on this important research and the value of building belonging. Community organizing takes time, but it's the only way out of the mess we're in. This work must continue regardless of who wins or loses in November.
This is classic community organizing - bringing neighbors together, identifying their top issues to advocate for, and developing leadership.
It works great when there are great local leaders like Rev. Edwards. But without great leaders, it doesn't happen.
The role of foundation funding is to fund leaders who prove themselves in battle. But I don't think any foundation can identify potential leaders in a nation of 340 million.
This is spot on. Thanks for your writing!
Thank you for such a thoughtful and engaging conversation.
Only the oligarchs can afford to be disaffected!
I'm very curious how much disaffection has been intentionally implanted by a political entity determined to remove concerned citizens from the civically engaged world. The primary theme behind the disaffection seems to be distrust in government. Which means that if you wanted to alienate people, you'd simply need to create distrust in government.
Presuming there's some validity to this hypothesis, I think one thing that might help re-engage the disaffected is to help them see that their disaffection is actually a desired outcome for one party, and their dissatisfaction and distrust in government have been cultivated for this very reason. When people realize - at a deep level - that they've been conned, that's when people can connect with their rightful indignation.
Given that a large segment of the population has also been led to distrust "mainstream media," as though being mainstream is somehow flawed per se, swaying them through the very vehicle that's been weaponized is unlikely to succeed. Thus, reconnection and re-belonging are likely the best recovery pathway. But the belonging needs to be with an undertaking that has an aim greater than the group's existence; otherwise, it's just a country club meet-up.
I believe a fundamental emphasis on returning to our roots - the Founders' vision and the core values and aspirations that we've defined ourselves by - ought to be high on our list. We need a zeal that resembles a civil religion (endorsed by the Founders in various ways), one whose devotion is to our principle charter, promising an active commitment to its support, protection, and strengthening.
The problem isn't that the wrong people are operating the machine. The problem is the machine.
Voters can elect politicians who promise “healthcare as a right,” “affordable housing,” higher taxes on billionaires, corporate regulation, or whatever else happens to be fashionable. But every such promise ultimately requires the same thing: political aggression over peaceful individuals—taxation, inflation, borrowing, regulation, and government control of property and voluntary exchange.
Freedom and prosperity doesn't come from finding better rulers. It comes from removing the power of rulers to dictate how peaceful individuals may live, work, trade, save, invest, and dispose of their own property.
The political class offers you a choice of masters and calls it democracy.
Liberty begins when you stop looking for better masters.
Smart.
I'm deeply grateful for how well you’ve landed the waning hope coupled with the remedy of relational (vs. transactional) organizing on the path toward reviving Democracy. The distinction (and remedy) reminds me of Martin Buber’s I-Thou (authentic) vs. I-It (transactional) relationship – the latter antithetical to our deeply human desire for belonging.
In 1980, I was asked to join the political party implementing the 1971 Powell Memo – what over time became the interconnected, cohesive, and aligned Authoritarian Ecosystem confronting us today. I declined.
In the context of both 1) that Authoritarian ecosystem and 2) the significance of the relational organizing described here, a question arises that I’d love to explore - whether in this community or elsewhere, as appropriate - is: As we build the relational foundation at the local level, how do we connect a thousand of those foundations into something at a scale sufficient to deliver a U.S. Democracy that works for People & Planet for the 21st Century?
Staying tuned, with appreciation.
Regarding the apparently forthcoming nomination of Troy Jackson in Maine, something about how the situation unfolded doesn't add up. The Maine Democratic Party, which has every appearance of being a typical grouping of career-oriented political insiders and, per The Lever, "is mostly funded by large out-of-state donors, including the national Democratic Party committees," is about to replace Platner with Jackson, a candidate who shares Platner's most important populist positions and was endorsed in an earlier gubernatorial primary by the Maine D.S.A. The Washington Post just ran an article yesterday saying, "Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) declined Tuesday to endorse Troy Jackson, who is expected to become his party’s nominee in Maine to face Sen. Susan Collins (R) in a crucial Senate race."
This actually doesn't make sense. It couldn't have been reasonably predicted that the Maine Democratic Party would choose Jackson. I wonder if some behind-the-scenes arrangement was worked out leading to this result.