If you read the first entry in this short series, whoever becomes an effective leader today, will have to be a bit more than just another pacifistic MLK/Gandhi copycat. If you didn't, you can read it here to catch up:
Terrible Revelations We MUST Face Now, Part 1
Who will these new leaders be? How will they come about? I don't know, but what you're about to read may help prevent wasted time when you start your search.
(This is 2 out of 4.)
The Next Truly Effective Leaders of Change Will NOT Work Within the Government
Conventional wisdom leads us to believe,
if we elect Candidate A over Candidate B, then Candidate A will clean up D.C. The best analogy to describe D.C. is a special barrel filled with rotten apples, infested with worms and maggots. You can replace the rotten apples with the fresh ones, but this particular barrel has rules for removing these apples. You can only throw out a limited number of them after waiting for a defined amount of time. Even if you replace a rotting bunch with a fresh batch, the other bad apples are still in there, spreading their corrupting influence. In such toxic surroundings, it is never the few good ones who change the rot, instead it's the rot that changes
them. There may be a lucky few that come out relatively unaffected in comparison to the others, but when it comes time to replace another batch of rotting apples, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the old ones and the ones you placed in there the last time.
Sadly, Obama is a prime example of this tragic process. He promised hope and change in Washington, and he gave the impression that he was quite sincere about his stated goals. During his first presidential campaign, he criticized trade deals and even pledged to renegotiate NAFTA. However, when he became president, the pressures of things like obstructionism and corporate interests chipped away at his integrity. Looking at the counter-intuitive decisions he's made, no sense can be made from his actions, except for the likelihood that the president has been (at least, somewhat) compromised. Heck, if Hillary won the primaries instead of Obama, she wouldn't have held out either.
NO politician can hold out nowadays, simply from the fact that the US has lost its right to legitimately call itself a democracy. Why? In 2014, a Princeton/Northwestern study released that year found that
Congress doesn’t listen to constituents unless they are rich. It found the interests of the top 10% of our country are 15 times MORE important to lawmakers than the interests held by the rest of us. One might look at this and think it only applies to Congress, but remember that almost all US presidential candidates were representatives and senators, and those connections don't just disappear once the winner reaches the White House.
Right now, there are probably those of you saying:
- If we had more qualified people with a good conscience running for office, then we would be able to fix D.C. -
Since SCOTUS's dubious ruling on Citizens United, any candidate with the right wealthy backer/s could throw around enough campaign money to choke an ocean of whales. This oversaturation of money in elections, drowns out many smaller candidates by only exposing people to what is essentially an extremely limited number of choices. Yes, it was hard to breakout on the political seen before, but without looking them up, can you think of one serious well-known contending third-party candidate NOT predating Citizens United? The candidates that tend to get the type of funding we see now, more often than not, are the ones without a good conscience, who bed themselves with either the Republicans or Democrats.
Why are the more unscrupulous candidates the ones to get major funding? They allow themselves to become puppets to their rich backers. When they win, they go into office and make choices that are thinly veiled appeasements to please their wealthy donors. Government officials were never really the most dependable when fulfilling their promises (clearly stated or implied) to the majority of their common constituents. Lately however, selling out to get into office and stay in power appears to be almost entirely blatant. They portray themselves as leaders and representatives of the people, and yet so many office holders today in this country are not. The closest thing to representation they do now is abiding by the will of a privileged and wealthy few. These few are sociopaths, person and entity alike, with no other loyalty but to the selfish call of boundless greed; no concern for the future of humanity's well-being, just how to make the most profit even if it means screwing over everyone else. Compared to politicians in this country today, a Magic 8-Ball would be a more genuine candidate than most.
- If we could improve the election process, then we could improve D.C. -
Let's say the election process is this computer's damaged hard drive...
If the computer's hard drive is
this badly damaged, do you try fixing that hard drive by working through the computer? You may be able to save some data, but were you able to fix the hard drive so that computer is completely functional again? I'm pretty sure the answer is "No," and the same goes with the election process. How do you fix a process, if the only ones who could fix it either, don't have the proper help, or just don't care since they feel that it somehow benefits them?
- The electoral system wouldn't be so dysfunctional if people got out and vote. -
That is a bit of a chicken-or-the-egg type statement, since:
- The popular vote's majority doesn't always determine the winner of presidential elections, but the majority of the Electoral College does.
- There are still laws disenfranchising minorities and/or the poor, especially since key parts of the Voting Rights Act were struck down.
- Gerrymandering causes the over representation of one demographic over the other.
- Even if something like an initiative is approved by voters, elected officials (including judges,) find ways to abuse checks and balances to weaken, halt, or outright kill said initiative.
- Let's not forget the 10% who have far more influence over our government.
Is the system dysfunctional because of the lack of voters, or are there a lack of voters because the system is dysfunctional? Yet with this, when people say the system is broken, and then say the only way to change it is by voting, it is mind-boggling since the electoral process is part of the very system that is broken.
- That's why I don't vote. -
Though the voting system is broken that doesn't mean there is no point to still voting. Where it fails as an effective solution for real change, it is still a good way to draw attention to important issues and how strongly people feel about them. Even if, for example, an initiative approved by the majority of voters, (such as building a high-speed railway that spans Florida,) was killed because some in the government wanted to take that victory away, (the high-speed railway was all but killed by Governor Rick Scott,) we still know that people wanted it. It also points out to the public the hypocrisy and corruption that has to be taken care of, as well as work as a body of proof that people do care. When the people know there are others like them out there who care, they are more likely to stay encouraged and determined to continue the fight, one way or the other. Plus, the higher the voter turnout, the better the chance the fight continues or strengthens. Voting isn't sufficient as a solution itself, but it can be good as a complement to a solution.
- Okay then, since we can't depend on our elected leaders in government, or the voting process, to make real changes to the status quo, (on their own at least,) what should we do then? -
This was already partially answered back in the first entry of this series, but that was mostly addressing today's overall strategies and leadership. The problems our nation is facing on the other hand, are much more complex than a one-solution-fits-all answer. A solution to a national issue isn't just different in comparison to other national issues, but the issue itself is likely not applied uniformly across the map either. For example: Police brutality is a national problem, but one town might not have as big as a problem with it as the town neighboring it. Trying to rally the country's populace behind a single defined solution is likely not going to work out, especially in a country where individualism is so engrained in its foundation. The next truly effective leaders of change are going to have to notice this, and develop overall strategy/ies that provide a foundation that is nationally connected, yet localized in tactics, which could possibly be coordinated with separate groups all focused on a common focused goal/s. Though the tactics will depend on the overall strategy/ies formed, the development of said tactics must keep specific basics in mind to successfully create the possibly of any truly effective change:
1.) This is War
Yes, the 'W' word! Those who prefer to follow reason and logic, do their best to avoid having to ever resort to it, yet sometimes there is no other acceptable choice. In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, one of the definitions of 'War' is "a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end." War is not the weapons and violence, but the conflict and the defined goal. You may not see it that way, but be assured that the opposition does, even if they don't just come out and admit it.
As with any war, the opposition will try to find a way to dominate; be it through total destruction, hobbling, or allow victories paltry in comparison to their own. Their actions can be nonviolent or violent, sneaky or blunt, one action or a combination of several. If they think there is still a threat to their status quo, if they know they can get away with it, then they will do whatever they can to crush that threat.
As with any war, the quality of victory determines a win or loss. (e.g.: Your people are not allowed to enter certain establishments, but you all acquired voting rights equal to that of the rest of the population. You win!...OR... Your people are allowed better paying jobs, but it is still legal to hunt you down and murder you at random. You lose!)
NEVER settle for less, otherwise the opposition
WILL find ways to keep taking, until you are back where you started or worse.
Finally, as with any war, unless a supposed ally/neutral party intentionally performs actions (or one big action) that aid the opposition and harm your side or an innocent neutral party,
DON'T TARGET THEM. Knowingly targeting people on your own side (or those not even actively involved with either side,) should already be an obvious no-no, but time and time again it happens. It's counterintuitive thinking that it somehow helps, because it instead destroys any bonds created through goodwill and grows opposition against your cause.
2.) The Forming and Keeping of a Stronghold
Any hope to continue fighting in the long run, requires the creation of a stronghold; someplace to meet in relative safety; a place to coordinate actions; somewhere to fall back on and regroup during the hardest of times. It can be a building, neighborhood, tent city in the park, an entire city, or an entire area of wilderness, but there
MUST be a defensive presence kept there to defend it. Many times throughout the history, movements of civil disobedience and rebellion fail when the opposition chases the dissenting force out of their own stronghold. It is rare that the dissenting force comes back, let alone keep or increase its strength.
3.) Establishing Cause and Goals, and Making Them Well-Known and Well-Defined
Ambiguity in purpose is the one thing that would most certainly kill any movement. If the people outside it don't know why it exists and what it want to accomplish, then they won't care or they'll follow the narrative of the opponents. If its own members don't even know, then it remains stagnant until it dies, defeating the very meaning of being a
movement, which requires progression to stay alive. Firmly establishing its cause and goals, and finding ways to make them well-defined and well-known inside and out, makes it harder for opponents to manipulate the public, easier to draw people in to join, reduces infighting and gives direction to the movement's members. One would think this would be common knowledge, but there have been movements with great potential that died in large part to ambiguity.
4.) Prepare for Withdrawal
There are so many distractions and conveniences today. Grocery stores, video games, movies, TV shows, YouTube, restaurants, smartphones, indoor plumbing, air conditioning, refrigeration, etc... Most or all of which may be lost in the long run. It may be due to the actions of the opponent in an attempt to somehow punish or weaken a movement. It may be due to the movement's own actions in an attempt to starve the opposition of resources, or maybe it resulted from the success itself.
Of course this isn't limited to material things. If you ever had friends or loved ones, you already know how they may not share the same views as yours. There's a possibility they might support you and your actions, but there is a much greater chance that they won't for one reason or another. Even if you want to commit a peaceful action, they'll likely chastise you because they feel that it is "not the right time to do it," "you are not doing it in accordance to the law," they don't believe you could pull it off, etc... Their fears, misinformation, willful ignorance or sanctimoniousness, (depending on the individual,) will make them turn on you, out of the hope of somehow protecting you, others, themselves, and/or the status quo that they have grown accustom to for so long.
Whichever the case, there is a high chance that once they stop being so readily available, the effects
will be felt, if not by you, then by others. Nothing breaks the spirit down more than the absence of a constant previously taken for granted. Such things can easily become temptations, increasing the chances of abandonment and treachery from within, and blame from the outside. Many potential and actual movements were destroyed throughout history this way. To combat this, the preparation of plans and resources to either, fill the void left over from their absence, or stay mentally strong while going 'cold turkey', is necessary. This will not only help all members within the movement, but non-opposing people outside of it who might also get affected, if the knowledge is shared with them.
5.) Customization
As stated before earlier, there is no one-solution-fits-all answer. All conditions of the possible area of action have to be analyzed for answers to such questions like:
- How amicable are the non-activist civilians towards activists?
- How strong is the hold of the opposition over the populace?
- How is the weather/climate (depending on the duration of activity)?
- How susceptible to the usage of force and/or underhanded acts are the local authorities/ opponents?
Whatever information received, work from there to tailor tactics that will work best towards the objective. If it fails and there is still an opportunity, reconfigure the tactics. If successful, repeat this process again in the next area and others afterward until the movement's goals has been met.
Government of the people, by the people, for the people. Even if the forefathers of this country never intended on representation being applied to women or minorities, the US was supposed to represent its people, not the rich privileged few. Yet we, the common citizen, are fighting an increasingly uphill battle, despite whatever gains made in the past. Too many of the leaders elected into government are loosening restrictions for corporate and upper-class influence over national and international affairs, while tightening restrictions for the influence of the rest of us. Be it the likes of voter ID laws, "Free Speech Zones," protest permits, privacy violations, or excessive force, they only add to the field of legal eggshells we have to navigate, if we hope to have our voices effectively heard and create effective change, without somehow getting in trouble; even with that, it doesn't prevent coercion and goading by the opposing forces.
If any leader hopes to make any true progress against the status quo today, they best realize that the modern rule of law concerning dissent is nothing more than a gag or bludgeon against it. These leaders have to educate others about this fact and reveal alternative options of recourse, which include the natural human right to ignore such unfair and unjust restrictions, and make a concerted effort to fight back. In fighting the powers that be, following the increasingly restrictive and convoluted laws or not, sooner or later people run into trouble; so those people mind as well make the most out of their actions and make them count.
- If you do that, you'll alienate any chances to convince anybody on the opposition to join us. You'll prove any preconceived notion they may have of us right! -
Well there's a big surprise in the following entry.