I share the anger on this site, and in the left-wing blogsphere, about the alleged compromise on tax cuts for the rich. People blame Obama. People blame the GOP. People blame the Democrats generally.
We're all frustrated. The fact is, times are tough. But if you think the election was bad, and the lame-duck Congress is, well, lame, wait until you see what a GOP-controlled Congress can do. They're going to unleash the furies against President Obama. If we sit by and watch, lamenting that he can't stop them because he's been tied up in hearings and other knots, we can kiss all of our causes goodbye.
Sitting by and watching turns out to be a fairly lame strategy in itself. Instead, let's make some noise. Let's get active. Let's make our causes visible.
I'd like to bring some attention to a recent article by Malcolm Gladwell on the subject of activism, which was largely ignored when it came out. As Gladwell says,
Activism that challenges the status quo—that attacks deeply rooted problems—is not for the faint of heart.
Gladwell talks about the importance of real social ties in developing a movement--kinship and friendship ties, personal ties, face-to-face ties. These ties, he says, are different from the "weak ties" of social networking.
The kind of activism associated with social media isn’t like this at all. The platforms of social media are built around weak ties. Twitter is a way of following (or being followed by) people you may never have met. Facebook is a tool for efficiently managing your acquaintances, for keeping up with the people you would not otherwise be able to stay in touch with. That’s why you can have a thousand "friends" on Facebook, as you never could in real life.
We've done a lot on this site to argue, defend, and refine ideas. We've launched a thousand phonebanking campaigns. We've emailed, texted, tweeted and facebooked for our causes with a devotion that has nonetheless kept us in our seats, on the sidelines, watching the debate unfold. There's no risk involved in posting a controversial piece on the president's weakness (or strength). We still expect him to do the heavy lifting, to make the change "we all voted for."
"Yeah," we say. "Why isn't he doing that thing we elected him to do? Why isn't he changing the status quo? When is he going to get on that change thing?"
Gladwell sums it up well,
The Internet lets us exploit the power of these kinds of distant connections with marvellous efficiency. It’s terrific at the diffusion of innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration, seamlessly matching up buyers and sellers, and the logistical functions of the dating world. But weak ties seldom lead to high-risk activism.
...
Social networks are effective at increasing participation—by lessening the level of motivation that participation requires. The Facebook page of the Save Darfur Coalition has 1,282,339 members, who have donated an average of nine cents apiece. The next biggest Darfur charity on Facebook has 22,073 members, who have donated an average of thirty-five cents. Help Save Darfur has 2,797 members, who have given, on average, fifteen cents. A spokesperson for the Save Darfur Coalition told Newsweek, "We wouldn’t necessarily gauge someone’s value to the advocacy movement based on what they’ve given. This is a powerful mechanism to engage this critical population. They inform their community, attend events, volunteer. It’s not something you can measure by looking at a ledger." In other words, Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice. We are a long way from the lunch counters of Greensboro.
I don't agree with everything Gladwell says in this piece. He gives too much credit to the top-down model of activism, to the role of the leadership, for one thing. He downplays the importance of local, creative actions. But I'm not sure we're doing any of that, on a local scale.
This much is unquestionably true:
Boycotts and sit-ins and nonviolent confrontations—which were the weapons of choice for the civil-rights movement—are high-risk strategies. They leave little room for conflict and error. The moment even one protester deviates from the script and responds to provocation, the moral legitimacy of the entire protest is compromised.
More than this, though, he's right about the need to take part in something actual.
That means actually showing up at the protest, instead of just writing about it afterwards, or watching a youtube that someone else posted.
It means organizing a protest in your own neighborhood, with people you actually know.
Putting your own name and reputation behind the cause you support.
It's risky, difficult, painful work. There is no immediate gratification. It's just hard.
If we want to create a serious movement to block these tax cuts for the rich--this shameless giveaway to the wealthy elite--we need to get off of our duffs and start organizing. Hold town-hall meetings, rallies, boycotts, and protests. We need to demonstrate our beliefs loud and clear.
Because, frankly, the other side isn't reading our posts, and if they are, they just don't give a damn.