Why America can't have nice things or DU, clictivist collective?

[genwah]

I've been noticing something for a number of years now. Progressives on the Web are a lot more organized on the Web than we are on the Street. Micah White over at The Guardian has noticed it, too. (If I found this link through another DU-er (DU-ist? DU-crat?) thank you.

A battle is raging for the soul of activism. It is a struggle between digital activists, who have adopted the logic of the marketplace, and those organisers who vehemently oppose the marketisation of social change. At stake is the possibility of an emancipatory revolution in our lifetimes.
The conflict can be traced back to 1997 when a quirky Berkeley, California-based software company known for its iconic flying toaster screensaver was purchased for $13.8m (£8.8m). The sale financially liberated the founders, a left-leaning husband-and-wife team. He was a computer programmer, she a vice-president of marketing. And a year later they founded an online political organisation known as MoveOn. Novel for its combination of the ideology of marketing with the skills of computer programming, MoveOn is a major centre-leftist pro-Democrat force in the US. It has since been heralded as the model for 21st-century activism. (ed. I didn't copy his links, go read the whole thing)

--snip--

The truth is that as the novelty of online activism wears off, millions of formerly socially engaged individuals who trusted digital organisations are coming away believing in the impotence of all forms of activism. Even leading Bay Area clicktivist organisations are finding it increasingly difficult to motivate their members to any action whatsoever. The insider truth is that the vast majority, between 80% to 90%, of so-called members rarely even open campaign emails. Clicktivists are to blame for alienating a generation of would-be activists with their ineffectual campaigns that resemble marketing. (ed. bolding mine)

When my home telephone was a “land line", because what else could it have been, activism meant doing something. Organizing anything from a demonstration to a teach-in (Google it.) depended on phone trees and stapling notices to telephone poles, which are not phone trees. A letter to the editor or an office holder needed paper, and envelope and a stamp.

How many Discussions have there been here about the abysmal Democratic voter turnout in 2014? I suggest to my fellow DU-istanians that a part of the problem is that voting involves actually DOING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT CLICKABLE. Does anyone here care about voter turnout in 2016? 'Cause the Tea Party does, and in 2014, they were better organized at GOTV than we were.

This site is named the Democratic Underground. I'm thinkn' that an underground site isn't always an underground press. The underground/free/alternative press had the intention of organizing for action. Sometimes, obviously not often enough, they succeded. Sometimes some people did something.

I tried an experiment earlier, I entered TPP into the site search bar at the top of this page and read the first few entries. I got "Discussions" that were people asking questions that remained unanswered, some that did, some that didn't get enough clicks to make it off of the kiddie table to the Greatest Threads. Except for my favorite DU-ista of the day, StopTheTPP no call to action. I'm hoping I picked a topic that just doesn't have any traction here yet. By the bye, how is it that when one starts a 'Discussion' that generates a conversation, of sorts, that 'Discussion' then becomes a 'Thread'? (Just askin'.)

Is this site more activist or clicktavist? Are the collective "we" so underground that we don't care that anyone above ground ever hear about us, or should we organize to make some noise? Not just about election years, but about the TPP, about "Middle Class Economics", et cetera? Who are we? That's the question, but today, I nominate StopTheTPP for Horton.

If you want to read ahead to part II, "What's my congress-critter done lately?" click here.

[merrily]

1. Let's list grass roots activism that has changed federal policy involving big bucks.

[Sunlei]

2. There have been some pure grass roots "tide changers". Takes a lot of people making calls, emails &

letters.

[merrily]

3. "Some?" Please be more specific.

Big business wants the TPP. Foreign nations want the TPP. Republicans want the TPP. New Democrats want the TPP. How many emails and calls or marches do you think it will take to stem that tide?

[Sunlei]

4. and visits to washingtondc. It takes people willing to pickup the phone and call their Reps, the WH.

people willing to dedicate their life to file cases in the Federal Courts. People with focus on issues. People willing to reveal crimes surrounding our Gov. officials. My point is policy can be changed at the regulation level. Riders can be attached to bills. People can be made to 'resign' due to information presented.

[merrily]

5. Third time: Please list specific accomplishments of grass roots activism that changed big bucks

federal policy.

Please don't show me more pictures or tell me what "it" takes. I am very familiar with calls, emails, marches, demonstrations, etc. I want to know specifically what was accomplished.

[Sunlei]

9. all federal policy is 'big bucks' . There have been hundreds of 'accomplishments', policy changes.

Many changes at the most local of levels and that effects/effected the Federal level 'policies'.

I have a question for you, you mentioned TPP the Asian area trade treaty America may sign on with several other countries.

My issue with TPP are the Corp. medicine prices. Americans are price gouged by drug corps. If the USA signs on what will change about drug prices American citizens pay? We're about the most price gouged country of all already on medicine prices. Our health care system is a pure 'for Corp profit' system.

It's all the other countries who today enjoy much lower drug prices who should be afraid.

What issue with TPP are you against?

[merrily]

11. Fifth time: Specifics, please. (No, not all federal policy is big $$$ or in the league of the TPP.

As far as your TPP questions, the OP is about lack of activism by Americans, not the provisions of the TPP. The provisions of the TPP are also not the reason I posted on this thread. If you want to discuss those right now, I'm not your gal.

[Sunlei]

15. you can use search and read about specifics. It would take all day.

I'm really not interested or vested in USA Corp. trade with other countries. What about TPP, (Asian pacific area trade treaty) worries you?

[merrily]

21. Again, I am discussing activism, NOT the TPP.

I haven't said whether the TPP worries me or not because the TPP per se is not the topic of this thread. Again, if you want to discuss the TPP rather than activism, I am not your gal, at least not on this thread.

[Sunlei]

27. you're the one who mentioned TPP in your post. Any changes to that trade agreement will take activi

activism.

Probably the kind of 'activism' that exposes Corp. crimes and exposes basic human rights violations by Corps. That 'backdoor' kind of 'activism' makes a lot quicker changes and assists front door 'activism', large public protests-court system-citizen contacts to Gov.

[merrily]

28. Only in connection with activism, as does the OP.

[genwah]

6. The American Revolution GAVE us federal policy in the first place.

Weekends, 40 our weeks and what else came from the Union movement, we just had MLK day which apparently only commemorates one paragraph from one speech, or something...

Not to say that you're not ABSOLYUTELY CORRECT merrily, since we have never ever succeded, EVER, it's time to post some more cat videos.

[merrily]

8. We can discuss whether the 1776 Revolution was really grass roots or top down. However,

when taking activism today, I am not sure there is a point to be made by going that far back, esp. if we're talking peaceful activism.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, over 50 years ago. J. Edgar Hoover's FBI keeping files on index cards, typing crap to MLK on a manual typewriter.

IMO, government response to the March on Washington was fear-generated, which we could also discuss.

Anything else?

[merrily]

10. Ah, edited to include a pot shot, after I replied. You claim America doesn't have nice things

things because we citizens are not active enough, but asking for specifics to back up your assertion is cause for snark, to the point you felt a need to edit your post to include it after I had replied.

Ok. Now how about substance?

[genwah]

12. Well, there is one little thing. Did you read the article that this discussion/thread is about?

Or did you just decide that the question of clictivist vs. activist wasn't as important as hijacking the conversaion? I wasn't even going to respond to your snark, because it was obviously off topic. But you get responses for responding to an unanswered question, and as far as I can tell, no one's read the OP past the title.

Which, I guess, answers my question.

[merrily]

14. If an OP claims we don't have nice things because we are not sufficiently activist, questioning the

Last edited Thu Jan 22, 2015, 12:25 PM - Edit history (1)

truth of that statement is not hijacking the conversation in my book. *

Is the failure of Americans to email, march, etc. really the reason, as the OP claims?

Or is the lack of response from government to grass roots activism (absent war or some fear element) and other factors the reason for the lack of activism?

ETA *I don't even know what snark you are implying I posted.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. When I was born being gay was illegal. Now we are nearing legal equality. Grassroots did that.

I know people who went to prison for marijuana, now I know people who are building the marijuana industry. What once meant jail now means jobs. The pun is unavoidable, but that was grassroots politics. Big, giant money issues are involved in both things. You can challenge that if you wish, but be ready to talk tax code, Social Security, Big Pharma, Law Enforcement and many other issues if you do.

On DU I see that activists who get results are detested by the groups who like to cheer for our side until we get those results, which are then claimed as success for all of us. Everyone now celebrates LGBT rights progress, but a few years ago much of DU was attacking LGBT posters for daring to be critical of Rick Warren's denigrating hate speech. 'You just hate Obama' they would say, as we engaged with Obama in exactly the way he wanted, as we delivered change and progress. 'You just want a pony, this is just poutrage' said people who now sport rainbow avatars and quote Harvey Milik.

[merrily]

20. Thank you!

I am not challenging, but I am asking. Apart from the military, until DOMA, weren't anti-gay laws state laws? And didn't federal courts (eg, the Texas sodomy case) and activism in states lead the way to equality? (proud Massachusetts resident here.)


As far as the federal level, was, in your opinion, things like phone calls, emails, etc. that turned the tide, or fairly well financed lobbyists like HRC* and the fact that one in eight Democratic bundlers are gay? (reportedly).


Also, there may be more money to be made by businesspeople from things like equal marriage than there is from denying equal marriage. Hotels, airlines, etc.


*Lobbyists like HRC, being financed by donations, are somewhere between groups of citizens, acting mostly with each other, and industry lobbyists.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. LGBT activism has included uprising and forceful opposition to the police, mass demonstrations

acts of political theater, the creation of entire social support networks (Reagan era America left LGBT community to fend for ourselves during the first several years of the greatest health care crisis of our times) and in terms of things like 'bundlers' well, back then there were few openly gay people in the Democratic Party at all because not too long before that time we were not welcome in the Party. Yes. In fact, one reason there are 'Log Cabin Republicans' is back in the land of ago, Republican groups would sometimes extend the 'wink and a nod for discreet people' method while Democratic groups purged gay people if discovered. Yes.
HRC did not even exist until 1980, at the time it was very grassroots, now it is so mainstream I don't even think about them. So I'm talking about building from scratch entire entities we can later discuss as being well funded and powerful. We made them well funded and powerful. It was not magic, but grassroots efforts that did this.
While the State laws put people in jail, Federal laws discriminated in taxation, allotment of benefits, military service and by excluding LGBT people from protections in employment and in housing afforded to everyone else.
I'm not being very coherent here, but the first General Election I voted in had the Briggs Initiative on the ballot. This asked for a yes or no vote on the question 'Should we fire all the gay teachers and also all teachers who support them, yes or no'. That's where it started for me. Huge and open bigotry and propositions for more of the same. We've come some great distance, and everything that today might look like or even be power and money was once nothing but a hated minority suggesting ideas that made many others absolutely furious.
The first time I heard someone propose marriage equality they were laughed at, gales of laughter from a room full of gay people some of whom are now in fact married. They thought it was a fantasy to even speak of such things and it was audacious because the other side was suggesting isolation camps and mass firings.
I'm posting a link to a speech by Harvey Milk in 1978, parts are famous from the movie, but Democrats and activists would do well to read the whole thing. The speech was given to the CDC, California Democratic Committee and it is very applicable to today....
http://www.danaroc.com/guests_harveymilk_122208.html

I'd also strongly recommend to all people who want to make change that they watch 'The Normal Heart' which is about activism in the face of AIDS and which is well done in the HBO version. This is a play by Larry Kramer, who later founded ACT UP.
In closing, the LGBT community did get up and do things, but only when faced by existential threats and empowered by a fear much greater than the fear of other people's bigotries. It was life or death, and our slogan was Silence = Death Knowledge = Life. It's easy to make some progress down that road when you are being chased down it by the Grimmest of Reapers.....

[merrily]

26. No question whatsoever that the gay community did things.

(I did a few of those things, too, esp. in my state and HRC got a modest monthly amount from my credit card for quite a few years. If I were wealthier, it still would be, but I can do only one at a time.)

My question went more to state vs. federal. In my perception, which may be wrong, for many years change from government came from the state and local level, from Stonewall to equal marriage.

Thank you, yes, federal funding around AIDs as a health issue was a massive grass roots movement by many for a number of years. (Was that the origin of ActUp, or did ActUp exist before that?) I am seeing in my mind's eye the quilts being spread out on grass.

From the most serious to not so: Sean Penn was great as Milk, and thanks for the links.

Understand, I am not saying people don't act. What I am questioning is whether government still responds to grass roots action anymore, sans lobbyists, sans big campaign donations, sans bundlers, etc.

Funding around AIDs is a great example that it does. But that took a heck of a lot more than a couple of marches and or a couple of thousand phone calls. And, as you say, Americans were dying in jaw-dropping numbers. (And how many gay people and supporters of gay people there were was becoming very evident to people who needed votes.)

ETA: ignore my question about ActUp. In re-reading your post, I see your post answered my question.

[snooper2]

13. I've been told here over and over that OCCUPY IS ALIVE!

somewhere...for something

[merrily]

17. IMO, Occupy did change the national conversation and accomplish some tangible things.

Mostly, I think halting the momentum the Cat Food Commission, the Grand Bargain Committee, etc. But, the sequester went into effect and I am not sure which affirmative good things government gave us as a result. Maybe someone else has some theories on that.

[Sunlei]

25. They are alive, today they have paid off quite a few debts for individuals. What occupy did

did for me, specifically is my bank was going to charge a fee every time I used my debit card. When occupy people were publicly protesting, my bank called me and did a customer service survey. I told them I would leave the bank if they started a debit card fee. They never started that fee.

[genwah]

16. Can we not go merilly, merrily down the rabbit hole? I'm not a good writer, but there

was a topic in my OP, I just checked. And the OP isn't just a one sentance, look over here, I actually had a question.

[merrily]

19. Is this site more cllicktivist or activist. Doesn't much matter unless grass roots

Last edited Thu Jan 22, 2015, 12:34 PM - Edit history (1)

activism accomplishes stuff, does it?

FYI: I did not read only one sentence of your OP. But, if the basic assumption--that we don't have nice things because we are not activist-- does not seem totally sound to me and I think the issue is an important one, I just may challenge the underlying assumption, rather than examine DU's navel over something that might not matter anyway.

Other posters can certainly reply to your OP however they wish. I am not stopping anyone from doing that.

[hunter]

22. My "Congress Critter" is among the most progressive and I live in California.

To be brutally honest I have a difficult time getting worked up about TPP.

I despise most everything about our modern economy, all flavors of it, American or international. I do my best to participate in it as little as possible. Flying to Washington D.C. or even driving to Sacramento as an activist seems to me a grotesque waste of fuel, although I occasionally do the later.

In that respect I am underground.

My "hot button" issues are LGBT rights, election integrity (opposing voter ID and other vote suppression tools, demanding paper ballots. etc.), protection of immigrants' human rights, my fierce rejection of U.S.A. automobile culture and U.S.A. gun culture, and a few more like that. I'm also a pacifist.

LGBT rights has been a serious political concern in my family for eighty years, at least. (I'm a baby-boomer, and child of Hollywood. I've always lived in an LGBT friendly environment.) The reality of "progress" in politics is that in terms of a human lifetime it is often glacially slow, building up by slow steps, and then rapidly, things start to happen.

Okay, now tell me what distinguishes the TPP from all the other horrors of our modern world? Relate it to me in a personal way. That's how you get traction.

BTW, did you mean for your links to be broken? Ha, ha.

[YoungDemCA]

23. What, you don't buy into the "Globalist" conspiracy theories re: TPP?

But someone on the Internet said so, it must be true!

[jeff47]

29. You mislabel the results in order to dismiss them.

How many Discussions have there been here about the abysmal Democratic voter turnout in 2014? I suggest to my fellow DU-istanians that a part of the problem is that voting involves actually DOING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT CLICKABLE.

The low turnout in 2014 is a protest. It is a bunch of people sitting out the election because Democrats gave them nothing to vote for.

Beg people to vote all you want, but when the choices are "get shit on" and "get shit on, with an occasional apology", you're not going to get high turnout.

We've tried tons of the tactics you proudly point to. We were protesting the utter indifference of the Democratic party to us. It didn't work, because my generation is so much smaller than yours. Democrats could afford to ignore us.

Until now.

Now there's a lot of people in your generation gnashing their teeth over "the kids" not voting, and thus you are losing elections. But it's "the kids" fault for not doing (fill in the blank). There's no attempt to look at what the Democratic party has "accomplished" over the 40 years your generation has been in control. In your particular post, it's our fault for not taking to the streets to fight for you. We're just lazy fuckers who won't do a thing beyond clicking.

The reality is we're busy desperately treading water, thanks to your generation shredding the safety net, public institutions and labor policies at the altar of "bipartisanship", "responsibility" and tax cuts. We're busting our asses more, because you created a world for us where we have to do that by embracing "least bad" politicians selling corporatist policies.

Times are changing for the Democratic party. Your generation is losing control, and we are finally getting to weaken the corporatism your generation embraced via voting for the "least bad option". Bad policies in the meantime? Well, we're already going to have to clear mountains of wreckage. A little more isn't going to be a big difference to us.

For now, your generation still controls the party leadership. Are, you guys gonna start giving us something to vote for? Or you going to keep complaining that we aren't excited about "least bad" politicians? 'Cause we can wait, and a little more shit on that mountain won't make much of a difference.

[merrily]

31. Jeff, is that really you? Always happy to agree with a DUer, esp. if it's a first

for me with a particular poster. The bit I can't align with though, is the generational stuff.

[jeff47]

33. Then take it up with the OP.

The OP is stating that back in their day, "the kids" did things. Today, "the kids" aren't doing those things, and that is wrong.

It's a recurring theme. Boomers who didn't particularly care to fight for GenX and Millenials are suddenly dismayed when GenX and Millenials aren't fighting for them. And it's blamed on GenX and Millenials. No effort is made to look at how we got to this situation.

The left-right divide in this country doesn't align neatly on generational boundaries. But the boundaries have large effects.

Older Boomers tend to be liberal.
Younger Boomers tend to be conservative.
Older GenX tends to be conservative.
Younger GenX tends to be liberal.
Older Millenials tend to be liberal.

Younger Boomers and older GenX formed a coalition that is now the Republican party. Older Boomers never formed a coalition with younger GenX. One difference is the age difference - Younger Boomers and older GenX is much more similar than older Boomers and Younger GenX. When younger GenX was worried about our high tuitions, student loans and crappy entry-level employment options, older Boomers were worried about Social Security, retirement plans and taxes.

Those differences made it harder to form a coalition. And older Boomers didn't need to, because they could align with younger WWII generation to get their goals accomplished. But the younger WWII generation is rapidly passing on, leaving older Boomers too small a group to win against younger Boomers and older GenX.

The party is currently controlled by older Boomers. Either they'll figure out that this is a problem they need to fix, or they won't. So far, it does not look like they've figured it out. But younger GenX and older Millenials are adjacent. When the older Boomers in power retire or pass on, we'll likely form a coalition and swing the country back.

[sabrina 1]

30. Another 'blame the voters' article. When will they get it? Or maybe they do and don't

want to place the blame where it belongs.

The author of the article clearly doesn't keep up with Liberal Online Orgs that actually ARE getting things done.

I dropped membership from Moveon as soon as they gained inside access and started listening to the same old political insiders they were supposed to replace rather than their members.

They ran polls 'what issues are important to you' eg, then ignored, didn't even comment, on their members choices, which naturally didn't coincide the political insiders' choices.

People are doing way more than clicking. They are not interested in, eg, 'guess what Sarah Palin said today' anymore.

They are helping to rebuild this party from the bottom up and are having success as the last election showed. Of course if you're just looking for 'just vote, trust us' anymore, that will be hard to find.

[merrily]

32. In this case not even only all voters, but DUers in particular.

As if a site determines what any of us do or have done off board, anyway.

What a very convenient thing it would be, to convince voters everything is their fault. Remind me: how much does that whole circus in D.C. cost taxpayers? Not just salaries for the folks we elect, but for all their staffers, lawyers, consultants, $50 muffins, trips, light bills, phone bills, maintenance staff, etc. The whole frickin ball of wax. And how billions of dollars of donated money does each and every election cost anymore? And it's not their fault? America doesn't have nice things because WE don't do enough for them? Not vice versa? Because they wouldn't rather vote for a war than an increase to OASDI any day of the week and twice on Sunday, except for the fact that their work week consists mostly of a few hours a day three days a week or zero hours a week, while some of us work two and three jobs for less than we pay them for "working" one?

Give me a damned break.