We The Who?

by: Jeffrey Abelson

Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 19:47

In the last week, I've written two diaries about America's rampant civic apathy, and the dangerous civic ignorance that flows from it -- as I feel that this is the true root cause of our increasingly dysfunctional democracy. And because it is rarely discussed in the public spotlight, and thus continues unabated.

Jeffrey Abelson :: We The Who?

However, in writing about these things, I tend to use the words "we" and "us" a lot, as I shy away from the accusatory "they" and "them" which separate us into camps -- the opposite of the "we all need to be in a social contract together" perspective that I'm trying to communicate.

But when I refer to the collective "we" -- or us, the ignorant masses -- there's often a disconnect in the minds of readers, as they themselves are immensely informed and engaged, thank you very much -- so what the hell am I doing challenging them?

Well, of course, I am not. At least not in a negative way. It's just the difficulty of writing about this subject without my finger-wagging outwardly. So I've been grappling with what kind of languaging to use when writing about people who don't read and think in a blog that's consumed by avid readers and thinkers, so as to (a) avoid condemnatory elitism with respect to our fellow citizens; and (b) to encourage readers not to take offense, but to go on offense in figuring out how they might help address the scourge of civic indifference in their own ways.

Any suggestions about either (a) or (b) would be greatly appreciated.

This we-vs.-they thing was touched upon in one of the comments I got -- which also suggested that the problem of civic ignorance is not limited to the uneducated. That's an enormously important point. The real culprits are the vast majority of middle class, otherwise intelligent people, who nevertheless remain willfully ignorant -- simply refusing to accept that it's their job as a citizen to stay informed and engaged. It is that giant group of people that need to be reached and inspired to change their attitude, a herculean task I hope becomes more doable via the combined efforts of as many partners as I can find to join me in this long journey.

And the progressive blogosphere seems to be the natural place to start. Because when average people educate themselves, they ultimately start to form their own well-reasoned views on socio-political matters. And more often than not, that results in the evolution of progressive worldviews. So long term, inspiring Americans to abandon apathy may also be the best and most sustainable path to a progressive America.

Even if I'm wrong, it seems obvious that an engaged citizenry is the best way to mitigate the negative consequences of either rabidly partisan or hopelessly gridlocked government, over-influenced by the most special of interests.

So yes, I am challenging readers -- challenging them to think of new ways to reach out to those who live in the darkness of civic apathy, and help them turn the lights on. We can all do that one person at a time in our personal lives. But bloggers can also have a multiplier effect, reaching lots more people every day with a few extra taps on their keyboard. So I hope some of them will start furiously tapping.

I'll expand on that in the next diary, suggesting a couple ways for the engaged community to ripple the message forward.

Personally, I'm doing my part in several ways. Aside from writing blog posts, and lengthy comments on the subject around the blogosphere -- I'm also trying to leverage my 20 year background as a filmmaker by developing a non-profit venture that will seek to spark a civic renaissance in America via a series of innovative film, TV, music, and internet projects conceived and produced by an array of thoughtful artists and creative thinkers from various walks of life working in unique collaborations.

And while seeking start-up funding for that venture, I've been doing a few small media things on my own as a one man band. Awhile back, I submitted a video question to the CNN/YouTube debate. Even though that debate has come and gone, the video was highlighted last week on YouTube as the EDITOR's #1 PICK on the NEWS & POLITICS page. It's still featured as one of the main picks there.
http://www.youtube.c...

It's generated over almost 4000 views in the last few days and continues climbing.

It's called "We The Who?" if you care to take a look.
http://www.youtube.c...

It's just a little zero-budget thing I threw together quickly, and I've done absolutely nothing to promote it. In fact, this is the first time I've ever mentioned it in print. But I do so because it seems like this subject matter has some resonance in this web video format, and I'm encouraged to do a few more.

My point is that we all travel different roads in our efforts to make the world a better place. Reversing the curse of civic apathy is my particular obsession. Making videos and films on this subject is my main method. My goal in these diaries is to hopefully encourage you to think about apathy/ignorance as a root cause, and use the method of your own madness to act on it. And in so doing, inspire as many people as possible to rejoin our common quest for peace and prosperity, health and happiness.

In that regard, we all need all the help we can get.

Tags: civic apathy, civic engagement, citizen responsibility, citizen responsibilities, civic duty, civics, apathy, responsibility, citizens, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

We The Who? | 2 comments

The Consumer Society (0.00 / 0)

Hello

Another great post! I've been thinking as well about the issue of civic apathy in the US. I've always thought that Americans (I'm an immigrant who is a naturalized citizen) are squandering a great deal of opportunity to shape and take the reins in setting the direction for their country by not being politically active. I mean, for the most part Americans have the Bill of Rights to protect them. Americans have a free press where even critical voices are tolerated. The right to dissent and voice unpopular views is a right that is often invoked whenever Americans wish to make a point about the freedoms it has.

Yet when it comes time to vote or be active in a civic capacity, Americans don't seem to want to take advantage of their rights. Voter turnout is abysmal -- if you wish to use that as the measure of civic engagement. Lately I am even observing a cynical attitude rising where the ones who are politically vocal and active in political matters tend to be ridiculed for being Politically Correct -- as if civic engagement itself is something that should be ridiculed.

I've heard differing views which seek to explain Americans' seeming civic indifference. I've distilled these to three main points:

1) Americans are very much aware and informed as a people. It is just that avenues for meaningful political participation really don't offer themselves readily to the average person in their day to day life. Working a full time job, raising a family, etc. take a lot of energy and to get involved, most people really would not find a reason to spare a few hours here and there unless an issue either strikes home in a very personal way or an avenue to participate is readily at hand that they can do that is convenient and easy to do. The field of Social Marketing is built upon these principles where engaging people to adopt a behavior or belief involves relating to them the same way marketers relate to potential consumers.

2) Americans have been trained from birth to be avid consumers. The mentality is that everything should work as the business-controlled media has trained the mass of people to be. To treat everything as a transaction where if a person wishes to get something they purchase or rent it. The most successful politicians operate in this realm of marketing principles where effectiveness is measured in how well they engage their constituents in a consumer-like relationship.

3) If it is not convenient or readily available, people tend to give up. For example, creating an alternative to the two-party system is an uphill battle that requires true dedication, belief in what one is trying to do, and a lot of sacrifice in time and effort. This type of work can take decades with no guarantee of success. The great mass of people aren't true believers in democracy enough to want to make that type of long-term sacrifice.

Just some thoughts.

by: LiberalArtsDude @ Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 01:57:16 AM UTC

Politics is Personal (0.00 / 0)

Thanks, again, for your insightful and challenging posts. You've taken on a huge, yet essential, task.

People - ignorant or otherwise - will respond most directly to issues that directly effect them at a personal level. This is the root of the adage, "All politics is local". Issues that effect the place where you live are most likely to get your attention and stimulate one to political action. But these personal effects can be national in scope. Consider the student opposition to the Viet Nam war and its relationship to the chance of those students being drafted.

So, if you want to get more folks to be politically active - personalize the issues. Its a slow process that occurs person by person. Throughout my life I have always cajoled and challenged others to take the minimal step of getting out to vote - even in off-year elections. I've had some success, mostly among my family members and close friends. But always by making a case for how it is important for THEM, not for their city, state, or nation - at the personal level. In most cases, this has been related to some particular local issue - property taxes, school funding, promoting or opposing some local land use or development, etc.

But, that's only the first step. If they participate and do not feel as though it is respected, or supported by the political system, or their neighbors, they rapidly lose interest. We don't have to reiterate the negative influence of how our consumerist society promotes the desire for immediate gratification, but it works against political involvment. This is a huge issue and I don't know that it will be easily over come. I can relate one small anecdote.

When I first moved to Minnesota I was surprised to find out that at each polling station they gave away a small, round, red sticker that says, "I Voted!". At first, I thought this was kind of silly and I wouldn't wear the thing. But, without it, a good number (3-5) people would question me about why I had not voted. Now, I wear it proudly and ask others why they haven't managed to get to voting booth. Occassionally, one or another local shops will give discounts to those displaying the badge. All positive, societal support for voting. Of course, being on the more radical end of the poltical spectrum, I'd get slammed by some of my aquaintances for my "snobbishness". Didn't I understand that voting for predetermined candidates only legitimizes our corrupt political system? Resistence means boycott - where are the badges for the boycotters?

Now, living in MN has its advantages in this regard, because we have very nice ballots - a blank line is provided for each race and this allows a very convenient means to write-in a candidate - or register a protest vote. If you want recognition for your boycott - use those spaces to express your opposition. This approach has brought a few of the radicals to the polling places. Again - by making the case for voting (even in protest) at the personal level, I had some success. Personally, I'd like to see a "none of the above" on the ballot, or an "abstain" option, but the blank space is good enough for now.

In fact, protest voting is something of a personal obession of mine. I've covered the subject many times on my public access TV show, but have yet to bring that to the internet. You've lit my fuse now, though.

Is this going to change the world? I don't know - but it has changed a few people's actions.

"It sounds wrong...
...but its right."

by: SpitBall @ Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 15:46:50 PM UTC