That's the title of a thought-provoking essay at PJ Media. It originally appeared last year, and has just been republished. It considers both left-wing (the Occupy movement) and right-wing (the Tea Party movement) activism, and draws conclusions that both sides will doubtless find uncomfortable. Here's a brief excerpt.
The phenomenon occurs among activists on the Left and the Right. Regardless of their ideological perspective or particular cause, amateur activists sabotage their own effort at every turn. Whether due to ignorance of processes or – more likely – stubborn defiance of reality, citizen activists focus too much on grinding their axe and not enough on achieving a goal.
Three recent examples warrant consideration. First, in Maine, a group of libertarian Republicans including a National Committeeman authored an open letter to the state party secretary tendering their resignation from the GOP following a rules fight which didn’t go their way at a meeting of the RNC ... In Minnesota, the Occupy movement has splintered as Occupy MN announced that it was cutting ties with a spin-off organization called Occupy Homes MN on account of the latter becoming “commercialized” and “profitable” ... Last but not least, activists made a stink following an incident at the Republican Party booth at the Minnesota State Fair.
Each of these examples and many more which could be cited indicate an activist mindset which I refer to as anti-activism. Like a gerbil running on its wheel, anti-activists expend tremendous energy toward getting nowhere. That becomes problematic for more thoughtful activists who focus on affecting public policy rather than protest for its own sake.
There's much more at the link. Worthwhile reading in this mid-term election year.
I sympathize with the 'political purists', and (as I've frequently stated in these pages) I distrust (not to mention detest) both major political parties. Nevertheless, as things stand at present, if we want to see change in this country it's going to have to at least begin using the existing system, because there's currently no viable alternative. It's hard to say that, and harder to hear it . . . but that's the way it is. This article offers a useful perspective on that reality.
Peter
2 comments:
Since the anti war 60's, has there been any group free of agent provocateurs?
The thing is, as long as the people vote the "proper way", their vote will count. But have a improper vote, and you'll be disenfranchised . So I interpret that as the illusion of choice, without the actuality of choice.
Francis W. Porretto notes that we can have compromise as long as we desire the same ends, and are only differing on the methods. When we disagree on the ends, we can't compromise, as "a vote for the lessor of two evils, is still a vote for evil".
And I have come to the conclusion that, just like a generation ago when the Democrat party left my parents, the Republican party has left me, and doesn't want me (and would prefer that I & my ideas go away) except for my vote to maintain their seat at the trough.
Post a Comment