« Larry Lessig on The Corporation | Main | Leisure Time »

October 23, 2007

How Activism Fails Activists

Brian's right to say that a prime reason today's twenty-somethings are spending ever less time in the streets with posters and puppets is that "tackling today's problems with yesterday's tactics carries a great risk of defeat--and even more so in an era when the consequences to oneself for putting oneself on the line are so high, and the consequences of inaction so low. We're not overwhelmed by the volume of tragedy in the world. We're overwhelmed because we're losing."

I think it's almost certainly wrong that we're not overwhelmed by the volume of tragedy in the world -- there'd have to be something genuinely wrong with you to be able to absorb the current moment in some coherent way. So what many of us do is pick and choose. But once an issue is selected, there's no real step two. Marching doesn't work. Exhortations to write a letter or shoot an e-mail seem increasingly hoary, particularly as the process is taken over by organized pressure groups able to flood legislators with millions of e-mails. Volunteers are generally misused, and even when a campaign tries to construct a movement out of them, it can backfire, discrediting the whole enterprise (see Dean, Howard, and those $%*^*# orange beanies). The utter inadequacy of contemporary methods of protest and social action has been well established -- it's even been recast as narcisstic. As Martin writes:

My generation tries to create lives that seem to match our values, but beyond that it's hard to locate a place to put our outrage. We aren't satisfied with point-and-click activism, as Friedman suggests, but we don't see other options. Many of us have protested, but we -- by and large -- felt like we were imitating an earlier generation, playing dress-up in our parents' old hippie clothes. I marched against the war and my president called it a focus group. The worst part was that I did feel inert while doing it. In the 21st century, a bunch of people marching down the street, complimenting one another on their original slogans and pretty protest signs, feels like self-flagellation, not real and true social change.

At the end of the day, there's really one good option: Donating money. Possibly even raising it. And so political activism becomes indistinguishable from consumerism, and relies on funding other people's ability to make a difference. Some groups, like Moveon, have done brilliant work at involving their small-time funders in the process, closing some of that gap. But the average campaign or cause is not nearly so innovative. And so most who want to be involved, who want to make a difference, are left writing a check, and never, themselves, feeling impactful.

October 23, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

No draft = no anti-war protestors

Posted by: Floccina | Oct 23, 2007 11:07:53 AM

Amassing resources (money) is an integral part of successful political movements. Lobbies that are successful have the deepest pockets. Signing a petition, marching, waving signs and banners are important to connect and network, but essentially the crux of success lies in political action groups that work the halls of the capital, file briefs to courts, testify to Congress, and focus on awareness campaigns- all require money. While a movement may or may not be essentially based upon a political platform, alliances can be made to suport a general cause when strictly political efforts fail.

Posted by: lilorphant | Oct 23, 2007 11:14:19 AM

Protesting is their right. Being listened to is not and that is what is chapping their collective asses.

Some groups, like Moveon, have done brilliant work at involving their small-time funders in the process, closing some of that gap.

Yeah, all you need is someone like George Soros.

Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 23, 2007 11:16:07 AM

Political change comes from the ability to threaten people's jobs. For the most part this revolves around money-- can we monetarily reward politicians who do right and punish the ones who do wrong? (Chris Dodd getting lots of donations for putting a hold on the FISA bill was a good example)

It's a bit hard to threaten the job of a senator, but it is much easier to threaten the jobs of your local politicians. Start getting your neighbors together, knock on some doors, and kick the right-wing blowhard off of the city council. Hey, it's a start.

Protests, too, only work if it carries with it an implicit threat. Reserving an avenue and marching down a sreet is awesome when celebrating a public holiday. However, it never carries with it the threat/demand that the marches be dealt with. Once again, it involves your local community, not gathering in a tourist-heavy isolated part of Washington, DC.

Posted by: Tyro | Oct 23, 2007 11:17:54 AM

"Reserving an avenue and marching down a sreet is awesome when celebrating a public holiday. However, it never carries with it the threat/demand that the marches be dealt with."

Well, sometimes it does.

But we haven't quite reached that point yet.

Posted by: scarshapedstar | Oct 23, 2007 11:30:47 AM

By the way, who says that this generation is less into activism than prior generations? I think such a conclusion would be the devil's own work to prove.

Posted by: Martin | Oct 23, 2007 11:37:30 AM

The fundamental problem with Martin's column is that it's not really about the inadequacy of activisim; it's about how that perceived inadequacy makes she and her friends feel. Guess what? Nobody cares.

Just look at the paragraph Ezra excerpted:

"It's hard ...."

"We aren't satisfied ...."

"we .... felt like we were imitating an earlier generation"

"My president" was mean to us.

"The worst part was that I did feel inert while doing it. ... [it] feels like self-flagellation, not real and true social change."

Oh my god it's sickening. This is nothing but narcissistic, woe-is-me, privileged white kid whining.

Her problem isn't really that she doesn't know where to "put" her outrage. She's angry and frustrated because the outrage itself hasn't gotten any results yet. This is just another manifestation of her generation's expectation of instant gratification. (And I'm a member of that generation.)

So you've been an activist for five or ten years and the world hasn't changed yet? Geez! How long is this going to take? This is harder than beating Mario 64!

Posted by: Jason C. | Oct 23, 2007 11:52:24 AM

I'd be curious to see what Ezra or Martin have to say about direct action and/or lawbreaking.

Posted by: Dap | Oct 23, 2007 12:09:56 PM

It sure doesn't help when you do try to find a pressure point for direct action and members of the liberal commentariat take time out to deride your efforts as embarrassing and counterproductive.

Posted by: Antid Oto | Oct 23, 2007 12:11:36 PM

But I don't think I meant quite what Dap did by "direct action." My fault, I was being loose with the term and writing my comment before I saw his/hers.

Posted by: Antid Oto | Oct 23, 2007 12:14:35 PM

I think the point about donating is exactly right. Often I wonder whether one would be better off spending time protesting / volunteering for a political campaign, or working and giving the proceeds of one's work to charity or the campaign. My sense is that the latter strategy is quite often the most effective, even though it doesn't feel like you're doing as much. (On the other hand, I'd sooo much rather be working a cash register than phone banking.)

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Oct 23, 2007 12:26:59 PM

"Impactful?" Really? You want to go on the record as someone who writes "impactful"?

Posted by: tdraicer | Oct 23, 2007 12:31:35 PM

Well, Neil, there's also being able to actively engage in fundraising-- organizing your friends and getting them to donate so you can speak as a single voice, rather than just writing a check.

Direct action of the sort of protesting outside recruiting offices is I think a useful form of protest. "Naming and shaming" local businesses whose owners are active supporters/fundraisers for the Bush administration could be a useful thing as well.

Posted by: Tyro | Oct 23, 2007 12:35:09 PM

Protests aren't necessarily going to change politicians' minds about anything, but they're important for demonstrating opposition. If we didn't march, people elsewhere in the country and the world would find it easy to assume that U.S. citizens support what the Bush administration is doing.

Posted by: Liz | Oct 23, 2007 12:39:35 PM

So you've been an activist for five or ten years and the world hasn't changed yet? Geez! How long is this going to take? This is harder than beating Mario 64!
Respectfully, bull. I'm not Martin's age - I'm nearly 40, been active since my teens, and by and large, the world has changed. In the wrong direction. For my generation, we've been losing all our adult lives. For Martin's, they've never KNOWN a political world where they weren't playing defense against the rising tide, or being betrayed by the hollowing-out of the Boomer Left they'd fought for. And even acknowledging that we're losing, that our leaders are failing us, seems to only bring contempt from our so-called allies.

Posted by: Mark W | Oct 23, 2007 12:42:29 PM

Jason C.: "This is nothing but narcissistic, woe-is-me, privileged white kid whining."

My bet is she was probably listening to Radiohead while writing it.

Posted by: everyone loves parfait | Oct 23, 2007 1:03:12 PM

Well, Neil, there's also being able to actively engage in fundraising-- organizing your friends and getting them to donate so you can speak as a single voice, rather than just writing a check.

Funny you should mention that, Tyro! In 2006 I spent the last couple months before the Congressional elections researching which races Democrats should donate to, and posting the results on this site. Ezra's readers ended up donating about $6000, and I'm still quite proud of having directed money to some of the tightest races. If I was swinging with twenty times the checkbook, I think I could've put Larry Kissell over the top in NC (he lost by under 400 votes) and Gary Trauner over the top in WY (he lost by ~900 votes). On the winning side, the one Senate campaign I had people give to was Jim Webb, and we also donated to a bunch of successful Secretary of State candidates in 2008 battleground states (OH, MN, NV) since those people oversee the voting.

No comment about my political involvement would be complete without thanking Ezra for letting me post here on weekends. It's a wonderful opportunity, and I'm blessed to have it.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Oct 23, 2007 1:20:37 PM

Ezra, your words are very accurate, depressing, and touching. I fear there really isn't any good outlet for idealism in the current generation. I'm not entirely sure there was much more effective outlets in the past, but that doesn't make the present dilemma any less true.

One thing you miss is: there are a lot of fulfilling positions and careers for helping the world. Unfortunately, there are far far more applicants than there are slots for these people. Peacecorps, AmeriCorps, working at a non-profit magazine like yourself, the Foreign Service, etc. They all turn away so many wide-eyed applicants a year. I don't think "the trap" exists simply because the corporate world is so lucrative, but also because the non-profit world isn't really recruiting.

Posted by: Tony V | Oct 23, 2007 2:55:18 PM

I will make the observation- not a recommendation, just an observation- that what this moment needs is some good old Sandoz grade LSD. And not your little feel-good 300-mic hits, either, more like five or ten of those to really open the doors of perception.

It's fine to talk about making money and donating it to causes, but in case you haven't noticed, the richest people are gaining the ability to make money a lot quicker than you are. The house game is always rigged to favor the house. The only way to win is not to play.

With apologies to Ezra, there's really only one good option- donating yourself. "God does not demand of us that we succeed, but He does demand of us that we try." (Attributed to Wm Jennings Bryan).

Ezra kind of gets this when he donates his time and money to give us this fine place to read and comment. Sometimes you need to remind yourself that what you're doing is worthwhile, even if the monetary system of exchange will never admit it. If you can't do that, you are indeed in a world of hurt.

Posted by: serial catowner | Oct 23, 2007 2:56:09 PM

Respectfully, bull. I'm not Martin's age - I'm nearly 40, been active since my teens, and by and large, the world has changed. In the wrong direction.

I didn't express myself very well: I didn't mean to imply that nothing had changed, just that the perception of Martin is that they haven't changed for the better.

But for what it's worth, are you really sure that things are worse than they were in the mid-1980s? When Reagan won 49 states?

Posted by: Jason C. | Oct 23, 2007 3:03:34 PM

Absolutely. In the 80s, there was still some shame. We still had the Supreme Court. We still had to be (or at least look) better than the Soviets. The peace and justice movement within the mainline churches was still reasonably alive and well. (I learned my Lefty politics from a Jesuit priest). There was much stronger living institutional memory on the left of a time when we were winning. (With all the good AND bad that implies). And Reagan, as awful as he was, did have a grain of genuine optimism and good will in there that allowed him to take the chance of taking Gorbachev seriously.

Most critically, we weren't yet on our knees. It took the Clinton capitulations and renunciation of Left goals, followed by the Bush II nightmare, to well and truly beat the resistance out of us.

Posted by: Mark W | Oct 23, 2007 3:16:20 PM

Reposted from the other thread: "Maybe this is a true analysis (of a certain subset of a certain age of a certain place). But IMHO it's also a whiny and pathetic one. I'm honestly not impressed at all with the most privileged people in the most privileged society in the world "feeling powerless and unsafe." What this piece fundamentally lacks is any sense of historical perspective. Actually, most people don't give a shit about politics, not because they're "overwhelmed" but just because it doesn't affect them and their lives. That's always been true and probably always will be true. Then there's the certain select group of upper class bleeding heart liberals, you know, the "outraged" ones who "care so deeply about" the world. Let's face it guys. If you really did care about the world, you would be doing about it. If you're not, then it's not because you were "overwhelmed" or "paralyzed," it's just that deep down you really did not care that much. Which is again the vast majority of all people that have ever lived."

Anyways, since this is a repost I'll add some stuff. There obviously are productive outlets for idealism. Even in the article about "Generation Overwhelmed," Martin and most of her friends are idealistic activists. So clearly they were able to find productive jobs that would allow them to live and also stay true to their beliefs. This isn't the fucking Soviet Union under Stalin folks. If you really do care about a certain cause, you can probably find a decent job working for that cause. Professional activism, charity, etc. in the United States is extremely well developed. Then if you sort-of maybe care, you can donate money. And obviously if you don't care you'll just go on with your life--which, let's face it, is almost certainly pretty nice, both objectively and relative to most of the other people in the world.

My approach is basically to praise people for activism, but not fault them for apathy. Not really consistent I guess, but that's the reality of the way things are. You know most people are sinners but there are those few saints, and all that stuff.

Posted by: Korha | Oct 23, 2007 4:09:01 PM

Some groups, like Moveon, have done brilliant work at involving their small-time funders in the process, closing some of that gap. But the average campaign or cause is not nearly so innovative.

I'd be curious to see more detail about why you think this is true, because in my experience, MoveOn is completely top-down and opaque. They create lots of little fun activities for members, I guess that might be what you mean.

Posted by: tatere | Oct 23, 2007 4:26:35 PM

Yet another whiny blogger aka Kos, Atrios, Ezra, etc. deriding a valid face of activism because they're too lazy and selfish to turn off their computers. Kee-rist it's embarassing. Public protests do work all over the world. And sometimes they don't work in the manner people want.

But only the most self-invlved narcisits can claim that protesting with a diverse group of your community to give a public face to private worry is some form of self-punishment.

And if public activism is a joke, I eagerly await the cancellation of Yearly Kos in favor of a donation drive. Pull down your hoodie and take off your ipods.

Posted by: christian | Oct 23, 2007 6:41:05 PM

Ezra, that's exactly how I feel. Plus, I hate the effing "Free Mumia" people who get in front of every march. I don't want to be seen with that professional freaks that protests bring out.

Having been on a recent American history kick, I'm surprised by how effective good old mobs have been. Maybe we need a riot for health care. What's the insurance company with the most right-wing power? Let's check:

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/indusclient.asp?code=H03&year=2006&sort=A

UnitedHealth Group!

Let's start smashing windows!

Posted by: Chris | Oct 23, 2007 6:53:10 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.