Welcome to Gaia! ::

I've been thinking through and trying to sort out an explanation for the inner workings of democracy. Let me know if this makes sense... or have any ideas to add.

----

In recent decades, as campaigns have shifted towards poll watching and sound bites made for television, a new trend has emerged -- candidates are becoming more encouraged to pursue the role of a populist. As the Webster Dictionary defines it, a populist is a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people or a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people.

It is rare these days for candidates to really have much to do with common people. People with the means to become serious politicians, especially at the state and federal level, are almost by definition exceptional. To appeal to the common people in this climate largely entails acting the part. Wearing jeans, speaking frankly, hosting outdoor bar-be-ques, and ultimately appealing to the emotions of the constituents and earning their trust. This is often done with the tactic of framing the opposition as "elitist" or an "insider" with the implied choice of maintaining the current establishment, or going for change brought to you by a guy that looks and talks like some of your closest neighbors.

There is another side to this form of populism -- the polls. In order to train a candidate to say the right things and address the right issues, the consultants working behind the scenes depend largely on polls and focus groups. The point is to capture the initial emotional reactions people have to specific issues, images, even choice of exact words used in political speeches and slogans. The candidates are literally trying to appeal to what is popular. This is arguably an environment that begs for mediocre candidates whom often resemble each other because they all get their cues from the same polling results. As such they are expected to answer to issues with the result being that they either agree with the majority of people in the polls, or they do not.

From the point of view of a nation, this populist tendency is made worse when the candidate actually wins the office. They're now expected to not behave as a performer for the common masses, but be themselves. And that may have little to do with the person they were throughout the campaign.

The other side of democracy, I will argue, is activism. Activism is usually associated with the progressives on the Left. However, Webster defines activism as a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue. In this case, democracy takes form of direct action by the people themselves, whom are by their own inclinations, intensely interested in political issues. Often with a specialized niche such as the environment or civil rights.

Rather than asking what the public wants, activists prefer to challenge them by educating them on issues of interest. An activist may seem similar to a populist in that they very often are common people themselves, but they seldom seek office personally. Or if the do, it tends to remain at the local level. They're much more about the process of democracy than they are focused on wining individual elections.

Perhaps because of this lack of tangible goals and visible people, the role of activism in politics goes underestimated by the public at large. When they are called out, it is often by the establishment they are directly challenging -- as was done by Republicans in the pejorative use of the phrase "judicial activism."

Such phrases expose the subtle ironies of populist candidates once they are in office. Originally offering themselves to the common people to fight on their behalf, as the establishment, it's the opposition by the common people, however small in numbers, that poses the greatest threat to their legitimacy. To reassure themselves, one may expect the winning candidate to invoke their mandate from the majority of people whom voted them into office -- not to forget the regular taking of polls -- as evidence that the establishment is above whatever challenges from below which may come.

I will argue that there are two democratic forces at work. One of consensus, and the other of participation. They are not entirely separate from each other. After all, candidates depend on issues being established ahead of time for the public to know what they are talking about. These issues are simple and to the point, much like their campaign slogans. Such as abortion, gay marriage, guns, suicide -- topics which undoubtedly draw the most visceral knee-jerk reactions from the people at the time of polling. Since it is quite natural for people to react with their emotions first, then only after follow through with the logic -- assuming the are equip with the knowledge -- it is not really a surprise that the most bluntly stated issues have the most extreme appeal to one side or the other. They are a consensus of emotions.

Participatory democracy requires that people stay with the issues and go beyond that initial reaction. In the process they encounter the subtle complexities of the issues as they meet with and are challenged by others. As a result, compromises may be required, and the movement for action can take on a lumbering pace. It can often take years, if not decades for an extremely controversial issue to become a serious topic of concern for political leaders. Occasionally, activism does become a big enough challenge to the immediate establishment, as infamously occurred in Washington DC in the 1960's during the era of Civil Rights movements. But as these movements require millions of participates, and an intense amount of energy and time, it is unsurprising that they are rare.

I've written this essay to draw attention to the two forces at work in democratic nations. Though I draw from my experiences in the United States, there are also lessens here for other countries. As the media takes over our daily lives, it has the ability to appeal our sensory impulses, emotions, and the less risky desire to fit in with people like ourselves. The growing media technology also has the ability to appeal our collective strengths as we achieve better means of communication, enabling us to educate ourselves and participate in the politics while remaining worlds apart.

It is self-empowering, yet in a way where the value comes in working with others while not forgetting to be yourself. To make the most of it requires confidence in humanity to ultimately do the right thing, even if it does take a long time. And it also requires self-confidence to realize that there is no one else better for the job of speaking for yourself than you.

----

So, does the populism vs. activism framing seem accurate enough? And whatever else you wanna discuss or yell at me about.

You're right. I wasn't thinking of court prescience. More so direct influence on the legislative branches...beyond electing people, anyway. sweatdrop

I have a family member that works as just such a lawyer, actually...

I'm not sure about it being a democracy even back then. But I agree, yes. Democracy means "rule by the people" after all. Here, it's rule by a privileged class of politicians who just call on the people to choose among them.

Aye. Exactly why I'm trying to lay out a coherent case for activist politics. I'm not sure people get why it's important.

Doesn't help that activists often get labeled as nuts -- sometimes disserved -- but people don't challenge the activists personally and come up with answers of their own. They just nod along with media pundits. Probably because they don't want to be put on the spot themselves.

A lot of this has to do with the amount of time people can devote to thinking about poltical issues. Between of school, work, child care, and recerational actives the average American only has enough free time to make superfical poltical choices based on pre-existing value systems. Motivation also is an issue.

Inspiring.