In my hometown of Utica, NY, the Utica City School Board elections were held on May 15th and the turnout was dismal at best. 3,733 people out of a total population of 62,235. Why does this happen?
A photo gallery of Utica run by USA Today (and picked up by the Albany Times Union) features some of the local community's wounds incurred by neoliberal economic policies like austerity and free trade agreements which have decimated the area's manufacturing job base over the last 30 years. Boarded up buildings, run-down neighborhoods, and unemployed residents.
People are upset because Utica's bruises are being exposed and they don't like it. It's embarrassing. It exposes a stark reality which has elicited some backlash within the community for this unflattering exposé.
They complain that the album entitled 'Tough Times in Utica' was one-sided. It's pretty self-evident from the title that the gallery itself wasn't going to showcase Utica's bright spots. Some are organizing photos of Utica's nicer locales to send to the Albany Times Union. This is counter productive.
Both of these things are connected.
In one instance, we have a clear case of community-wide apathy.
In the other, we have the truth that we aren't ready to deal with because of that apathy.
Voters have been disengaging themselves from the political process since the Carter administration. That disillusion has been chipping away at the already limited democratic tools in American society. The greatest crime against democracy is not despotism, voter fraud, or Citizen's United. It is non-participation.
One of the biggest factors in this growing apathy is communication. Americans do not like to think or talk about challenging topics. The voluntary disassociation from topics like politics, society, or economics only breeds apathy. Politicians love this.
The less involved we are, the more streamlined the process is of excluding our concerns from policy becomes. We allow the revolving door of government-business collusion to usurp our voices. We vote once every election cycle. Maybe. Then we sink back into our comfort zones. The socially-neutral niche that we have found so as to keep ourselves from not being bothered.
Again, we disengage. We disparage those who speak out. We tell them to get jobs, even if they're already employed. We have two choices, democracy or domination. Too many of us have become comfortable with the latter.
We think that the issues are too big. We think nothing is going to change. We retreat into delusion: books, calendars, coffee mugs, these things and more, with messages of positive reinforcement. All part of a marketing campaign that has left us more neutered than before.
We don't want to deal with reality. We don't like negativity. We don't want to hear what's bad. Only what's good, so we can put band-aids on the blemishes and move forward while getting nothing accomplished except feeling accomplished.
The 'Positive Thinking Movement' has done as much damage to our national psyche than any government-ordained propaganda movement has. We lock ourselves into a positive-negative thinking dyad from which we do not emerge from.
Anything perceived as negative is dismissed and written off. As a matter of fact, in 2006, Lehmann Brothers fired the head of their real estate division for his worries over an emerging housing bubble. That's right, it even permeates our corporate structure and played a vital role in the economic collapse of 2008. “Negativity” was never even factored into the risks incurred by banks which they then socialize, thereby passing it onto us. 'Gotta love state capitalism.
So, we have become disillusioned with our political process. Scandals and wars and corruption since the 1970s has fueled this. We don't want to address it because we would rather concentrate on the “positive”.
Our method of fixing becomes a mix of prayer and sending out “good vibes” into the universe hoping, rather supernaturally, that they will manifest themselves into good tidings and swirling cyclones of butterflies and rose petals which will envelop us and tickle our skin with smiles, rainbows, and sunshine kisses.
We don't want to face reality. We choose delusion.
The American model of acceptable, pro-social behavior is sterile, superficial, and non-confrontational to a fault. The result is a society which cannot engage in pragmatic dialogue over challenging topics and instead panders to socially-neutral anecdotes and illogical fairy-tales which perpetuate an arrested status quo, further prohibiting access to new information and thus methods of progressive change.
Politicians have captured this and given us the “campaign platform”.
“When I am elected, I will do this...”
Everything the candidate stands for, everything their party stands for, is neatly squared off to a reserved “side”. They divide every issue up into a group, and then their opposition attaches stigmas to it. So you can't bring up the word "communism" without someone screaming that you're a devil worshiper or some such nonsense.
Anarchy, which was actually a viable political force in the United States until approximately 40 years ago, is now connoted with street punks in black scarves throwing rocks through windows. A philosophy which implores people to become their own masters through deliberate living and direct democracy, whittled down to nothing more than MTV-syndrome amongst angsty teens.
Socialism, communism, fascism – all regularly used as synonyms despite distinct respective meanings.
Because we don't talk. We avoid the academic and actively demean academia. Liberal professors who hate America and preach their negativity to America's youth. Isn't that how the accusation goes?
We have dismissed the fact that intelligence is born of scrutiny. She who asks why may find the answer, or encourage and inspire others to do the same. The United States does not value those who ask questions. We are only worth anything if we are making money.
When I've travelled or lived abroad, I've always noted how different Americans are when they sit at a pub and start talking. We're a mixed people, so we don't look different. Physical cues can vary by culture, but that's not it either.
The biggest difference I've noticed is the topic of conversation. Americans talk about the weather, money, money, money, new cars, and money. Perhaps a misogynistic account of that drunk girl from the other night. People from other cultures talk about these things as well, but I remember two instances that this hit me, both in conversation with a Canadian.
The first was in Portugal sharing a conversation with one of the most beautiful women I had ever met, at a small bar in a beach town. We had a conversation about anarchy and the effects on women after a systemic collapse occurs with a government or an economy.
The other time, I was in Seoul, again in a pub, and I met a man from Toronto who was in Korea to work on rockets for satellites. We talked about the Toronto Maple Leafs (always a favorite topic of mine), evolution, the definition of “theory” (and how so many people cannot define it correctly), economics, foreign policy, North Korea, philosophy, and some astrophysics (I was the listener during that bit).
In each of these instances, I was hit with how different Americans talk back home. One is pressed to find conversation like this. It only occurs in certain places among certain people; typically those written off as intellectual elitists.
While I was abroad last, the Midterm elections took place. Congress was infused with Tea Party candidates. And, since the Tea Party formed, political discourse has sunk into complete vitriol.
America cannot talk about its problems without the ad hominem. Without hyperbole.
On the wave of small government rhetoric, Tea Party candidates were elected to take on the challenge of the economy and proceeded to enact legislation, instead, aimed at limiting the rights of gays, immigrants, Muslims, and women.
Smaller government alright.
This is a problem with voting as the only means to effect change – it often doesn't yield the desired results. While voting should not be discouraged, there is an overemphasis on it and it alone as the way democracy works.
The election with the most voter turnout is the presidential election every four years. The big one coming up in just a few months. Every four years we're treated to multi-million dollar campaigns that border on the absolutely ridiculous.
“Candidate A loves big government and hates freedom!”
“Candidate B will turn the economy around!”
Intentionally vague. Concision at its finest. Only the things that will get people cheering. Not only do we place a higher value on the effects of voting, but also the power of the president-elect as well. Citizens in the United States tend to forget that the president is only one-third of the government.
People seem to forget that there's a system of checks and balances at every level of government (thus the low return on what people vote for). It discourages people from doing it again, or leads them to disengage from the process altogether.
Part of this is that people don't understand the limits on power, or the checks and balances, that we have instituted at every level of government. One other big reason is that people vote once every voting cycle and that is the total input from them into the democratic process until another vote comes up.
There's very little follow-through. Very little that we hold our elected representatives accountable for, and very little direct action that we participate in in any great, influential number.
History shows us that progress is born through struggle. Instead, Americans vote for someone they think is going to change things on their own. It doesn't work this way. It never has. So, the result is people saying, "It's all messed up and it will never change (so why try?)," when they actually don't understand their responsibility in enacting change, or the limits of power of those elected to do the same.
We leave democracy at the voting booth. We need to start carrying it around with us. Detractors will point out that we don't live in a democracy, but actually a republic. A republic is simply modified democracy, and to engage in direct democracy, one does not need a permission slip. Protest, even outside the law, is essential to creating democracy where there isn't any.
It all creates apathy. Through the apathy, we remove ourselves and instead turn to distractions, or necessary illusions (sports, TV dramas, reality TV, consuming, image consciousness, etc.).
We participate in our own domination because we are weary of negativity. We don't want to scrutinize or criticize. Only apologize and hope.
We seek band-aids to cover the wounds that have not healed and aren't healing now. Small pockets of individuals who care enough to be active in political, social, and economic happenings are isolated. People don't want to deal with them. They're negative.
Even here in Utica, the local Occupy group is small and limited on resources. Still, we have achieved some small victories. It doesn't take an army. And it doesn't require even full-time commitment. Just a group of organized people doing their little bit.
Weekly general assemblies are held across the street from a bar that caters to a crowd of progressive do-nothings. Dressing the part of the intellectually stimulated activist. Possibly even aware of the problems facing our society, but impotent and sterile from their decision to remain inactive.
Discouraging, but we don't want to inundate them with negativity. Do we?
Maybe that's how solutions are going to be reached, though. Maybe if we stop shielding ourselves, we'll start to deal with reality. Perhaps through seeking answers to the hard, negative questions, we'll develop ways to fix Utica.
Then we can send the Albany Times Union and USA Today a nice photo album of pretty pictures.
Derek Scarlino is the asshole of Occupy Utica, armed with a background in history and politics, and keen interests in philosophy, evolution, and egalitarian economics. A locally published writer on social and political issues for over five years, he has interviewed and covered area politicians (serving at various levels of local, state, and national government), corresponded from abroad where he has lived and travelled, and infused himself in activism throughout his 20′s. He considers his views to be generally far Left to anarchy. The self-described Han Solo of OU, he sometimes has trouble compromising and has a natural proclivity for detachment from group initiatives, but he’s working on it. Oh, and he’s single, ladies.