Being Change

[RedSkunk]

Recent op/ed I wrote. Jonathan Anomaly's article simply went into why voting was often pointless. I'm wondering if anyone here can spin a conversation from what I've written.

---

Jonathan Anomaly’s recent commentary could have gone one step further. Not only do single votes not matter, but the elections themselves often result in little progress.

The belief that the latest midterm elections will result in significant change is rooted in hope, not in any sort of reality. Faces might change, policy might be re-examined in the short-term, but the fundamental structures still exist and will continue.

For an example of this one need only look to Iraq. The connection is rarely made between the million dead due to sanctions (due to our 42nd president – the black jazz musician) and the hundreds of thousands because of the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation (due to our 43rd, or “Satan”). The current debacle in Iraq didn’t spontaneously occur. It’s the physical manifestation of a continued Middle East policy.

Still, to emphasize this and leave it at that is counterproductive. Pointing this out only serves to further disenfranchise. The way toward change is not abandoning the current political system, but working within it, with a wink and a nod, acknowledging that it’s ineffective. The best quality of a democratic system is that it (ideally) limits the power and length of reign of those who seek power. So voting is important if for no other reason than to bring different intolerable and backward leaders to power.

But what is effective in advancing a given ideology or cause? To put it tritely, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” This requires a certain amount of qualification. The assumed advice here is that environmentalists reduce their ecological footprints, feminists fight against patriarchal norms, and peaceniks actively oppose war and imperialistic foreign policy. But again, the impact of a single individual is insignificant. One typical response to this goes along the lines of, “If everyone did it …” But they don’t.

Nonetheless, being a “part of the solution” is important because it works to change the fundamental structures of the system. The millions who took to the streets in protest on the eve of the most recent invasion of Iraq didn’t change the outcome of the war, but they did renew interest in and discourse on issues of peace.

If nobody had taken to the streets to protest because they felt it was futile, then that dialogue would have remained largely internal. To change a society based on war and fear, these characteristics need to be questioned in the public sphere.

Voting is only the first, simplest and most limited means of civic participation. What is much more important than voting is action — and not for an expected outcome, but for the sake of the action itself.

Don’t protest war thinking it will change anything. It probably won’t. Protest because it’s the right thing to do and not doing anything is contributing to the problem.

College is a peculiar time when we’re presented with overwhelming opportunities for taking action, and we largely don’t. Some of us voted last week; most of us probably didn’t. And for the purpose of affecting change, it doesn’t matter. What is more important is that we remain active in our student organizations, educate and inform ourselves and each other, and participate in open discourse with one another. The first step toward any change is becoming a full, well-rounded individual – something it'd be nice to think college is all about.

[Imperator]

The first step toward any change is becoming a full, well-rounded individual – something it'd be nice to think college is all about.

You mean it's not about working your ass of for some crap degree you don't like just to get a well paying job (hopefully) in the future? ;)

Nah, I agree with yas.

So voting is important if for no other reason than to bring different intolerable and backward leaders to power.

Agreed. It seems that most of us view our choices as "evil" vs "lesser evil". But for me, voting for either validates the evil. You may vote for what you consider the lesser evil, but that still means you are supporting something you consider ineffective.

I think that's the root cause of lack of voting in this country. We perceive a lack of power, and the lack of change regardless of how we vote, therefore, we no longer partake in the system. It is very much a self-fufilling prophesy at that too.....

The millions who took to the streets in protest on the eve of the most recent invasion of Iraq didn’t change the outcome of the war, but they did renew interest in and discourse on issues of peace.

Is that due to the action itself, or the spread of education on said subject due to the action? If the spread of knowledge and interest is the fundamental goal of protesting, then protesting may not be the most effective method to undergo change, as it reaches only a small portion of the population, unless the event receives national media attention, as the above case presents.

To change a society based on war and fear, these characteristics need to be questioned in the public sphere.

That would assume we are a society based on war and fear. I would think we are more a society based on the status quo and lackadaisicalness. War and Fear were changes to our society, thereby we reject them (ie, we reject change). This also fits into the statements above. The President may change, but the policy inherenty remains the same. Notice that the people who platform major changes to the status quo (mainly Third Party candidates), are the least popular, for no other reason than change is scary.

---------------

If anyone has noticed, my major complaint about users here is that everyone simply blows smoke and hot air. My usual complain as of late has been "what are you gonna do about it?".

It's one thing to state what you dislike, want to see change, etc. It's another to actually take that first step towards the change.

Most recently was the thread here , where Jose makes the comment, "You honestly think that the intolerance issue will be solved?
I don't care how you break it up, it will never happen."

That's the typical attitude of Americans, and other cultures it seems. We don't see an immediate solution, therefore we see the problem as impossible.

Point is, nothing is impossible. Think about some of the fundamental changes civilization has undergone in the past three millenia. We have moved from the idea that there is a hierarchy of humans (slavery), to the idea that "all men are created equal". That's a HUGE advancement in social attitude, and while it may have taken quite some time to achieve, the problem is much less prevalent today than 2000 years ago......

And yet this may all have started with something as simple as someone being nice to a person of a different ethnicity (specifically avoiding the term "race" here.....hint hint.....)

Globalization and improved communication skills mean that we are better able to facilitate education and information, yet social change remains a long, slow, and often painful process......

[RedSkunk]

At 11/15/06 06:23 PM, Imperator wrote: That would assume we are a society based on war and fear.

You challenge my assumption? War and fear aren't necessarily "changes." The US has been at war in one form or another since adopting the position of super power & loving it sixty-odd years ago. Additionally, these wars and their foreign policy have been angled to provoke fear, to gain support. Cite the Cold War.

And yet this may all have started with something as simple as someone being nice to a person of a different ethnicity (specifically avoiding the term "race" here.....hint hint.....)

The idea that slavery's end – or any change at all – was precipitated by an individual is a pretty big leap. Willing to make the case for such looney individualism?