Some reacting to 2010 primary results are quick to lament a crumbling establishment and to blame polarization on activists, but I see the elections as victories for asymmetrical, people-powered politics. Blaming activists for being, well, activists, is a cop-out for doing the hard work of listening, bridge building, and making tough choices. Today's issues are no less polarizing than they have ever been. Last night's victories were the same left vs. right and people vs. powerful fights we've always fought. Compare health care reform and immigration to Social Security and the Civil Rights Act and you'll see the same flaming rhetoric; what has changed is the ability of individuals to make change on these issues with only a laptop and a dream.
I would argue that the political establishment isn't crumbling -- it's being reborn with new and old faces linked not by longevity but by adaptability to modern times. This has been trending in the last few election cycles because new media technology adds fundraising and friendraising capacity to the standard primary fights and anti-Washington throw-the-bums-out rhetoric, and empowers asymmetrical networks.
As I wrote in Campaign Boot Camp:
I saw many of these networks firsthand on the campaign trail in 2006. The top-down nature of institutions is being reinvigorated by the bottom-up rough and tumble of online social and political networking. This new blend of asymmetrical politics thrives on bringing old-school politics and new media together. In communities around the county, I visited with people who had lost confidence in the large institutions--such as government (because of Katrina, Iraq, and corruption), corporations (due to Enron and other instances when executives bilked employees and investors), and churches (after the pedophilia scandals). Yet these people felt intense pride in their own community institutions and service traditions. Not only were they voting out a culture of corruption, they were ushering in a culture of service: walking precincts for candidates and walking 10k's for AIDS or breast cancer research; meeting to clean up politics and to clean up beaches, parks, and neighborhoods.
Asymmetrical politics elected President Barack Obama, who refused to "wait his turn" in 2008, and empowered thousands of other elected officials and activists who didn't wait in line or pay their dues before entering the national stage. Longtime politicos who embraced these changes have survived and even thrived. In 2010, we see even more of these networks engaged.
Asymmetrical politics will get you heard, but one network alone cannot win an election. The grassroots rallies for congressional candidates in PA-12 tell this tale: the 100-person rally with Senator Scott Brown vs. the 1,000-person rally with President Bill Clinton: sure, the tea party network drove Tim Burns' loud, anti-Washington referendum message, but that community was ultimately more attracted to Mark Critz's homegrown vs. outsourcing jobs choice message.
Rejecting asymmetrical politics has its perils. The mistake many politicians make is to think that if they just vilify both sides as extremists and paint themselves as moderates, they'll get a pass from making the tough choices we elect them to make. Both Arlen Specter and Blanche Lincoln prided themselves a little too gleefully on standing up to ideologues, rather than adopting a more respectful approach to activists and building bridges among them. Turnout numbers for both parties indicate a hunger for change not restricted to one political party or network. There are many networks to engage and many coalitions to build. Anyone thinking they can simply ride a wave without learning how to navigate these networks will end up crashed up on the beach alone. In Arkansas, for example, we'll see on the June 8 runoff whether Blanche Lincoln or Bill Halter learns this lesson in time to win.
Does this asymmetrical politics threaten the status quo? Absolutely. Those who depended on seniority rather than on earning their jobs every day have had a rude awakening (at least I hope everyone is awake by now). Does it mean we'll be polarized and paralyzed? Not necessarily? After all, general elections require an appeal across the spectrum. Candidate will get to 50%+1 in one of two ways: by adopting populist platforms with cross-appeal to build bridges among asymmetrical networks of Democrats, Republicans and Independents, all of whom want jobs and security, or, by demonizing their opponents via the politics of personal destruction in what a friend active in veterans issues and Pennsylvania politics calls "the battle of making the other the fringe."
My advice to incumbents is: don't lament a crumbling establishment; praise a reinvigorated democracy. Choose to embrace, not fear, asymmetrical politics; choose the courageous politics of bridge building over the vapid politics of personal destruction. In the months ahead, I'm hoping for the former and bracing myself for the latter.
Follow Christine Pelosi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sfpelosi
Let her go to the Louisiana coast to praise her "reinvigorated Democracy".
BOOT them all out as soon as possible!
Fanned!
In the Arkansas runoff, yes. Elsewhere, we have plurality voting: whoever gets the most votes wins, no majority required.
I think we should let people choose which House seat in their state to vote for.
What has been dragging the party down is life-timers in the DNC and DLC who ignore the wishes of the voters and care only about their positions and plum legacy jobs for their children . Here's to new blood invigorating the Democrats.
We elect our representatives to go to congress and advocate for public monies, for laws that reflect our individual ideals (lifestyle choices), and laws that will improve our lives (given lack of choice). But since more money to one area should mean less money to the other areas; laws that reflect my ideals can legally exclude your ideals; and improvements to your life means, in theory, my life cannot improve or may even digress, this process, which isn’t supposed to be to any constituency’s advantage, is innately adversarial.
Add politicians and what we get is instantaneous grouping to gain advantage not for individual constituencies or even constituencies sharing specific similarities, but grouping along party lines. And as those alliances have formed and the number of groups has decreased while the population has increased, more members of each group have become disenfranchised given the wide variety of individual ideologies and the narrow scope of political intent.
Add special interests—lobbying—and the needs and desires of constituents in general are replaced by the wants of individual constituents, corporations, organizations, foreign governments and ultimately whole industries. The civilizing of the human animal’s fight for survival through political, economic and social structure becomes the dehumanizing of the mainstay of said society through their reduction to skilled and unskilled labor, voters, tax payers and bartering points.
“We the People of the United States, in order to eliminate corruption and try once again to form a more perfect Union…”
We could, in every legislative district, have the people interview everyone within their district concerning how they would handle the positions of senate and house. Then we draft several as candidates, notify everyone within the district of their credentials without campaigning and have the people decide which candidate they believe will allow their constituents to dictate their vote on every issue. That is the only way to get them to represent the people.
Still waiting for ONE person on TV covering over 6 Billion people to ask the most basic question about
MONEY/DEBT!
Who does Every Nation OWE! Never tell you WHO!
Talk about a CON
A democracy would already be asymmetrical policy making without politics. The people placed in office would be drafted by the communities, they wouldn't choose to run for office. Democratic people in office wouldn't make a career of it but serve their country then return home having that much more seniority on their jobs.
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States have not read our constitution objectively to know how it say to be a democracy, but have allowed those we supposedly elected to serve us dictate it to us. We should have an asymmetrical system of government with the people controlling how the nation operates rather than the group of secretive career people telling us what they will do for us. Everyone in Washington, DC should have the interest of the people at heart, asking "not what [their] country can do for [them] but what [they] can do for [their] country" for this to be a democracy.
I was asking someone on another blog that if we did actually unite and demand our leaders obey their oaths of office, do you think they would just say okay and do it. The American Revolution was liberal only in a relative sense, just as our government is only liberal today relative to royal subjugation. You can bet if there was even an ideological revolution like we're discussing, the whole government would show itself to be relatively conservative...as in, "we don't see the problem with the way things are, so why are all of you so upset."
Remember Elijah, the Founding Fathers only wanted to transfer the power into their own hands, and weren’t nearly as upset about the plight of the people as the amount of money British taxes were taking from them personally; or else the first part of the Constitution would be civil rights and establishment of governmental authority the amendments. Today that power is still focused in very few hands, and the wealthy still get upset at any mention of any degree of "sharing the wealth."
They’ll gladly sacrifice a few seats knowing they can simply isolate and overpower any numerical minority we elect, so anything short of electing/appointing, as you suggest, humanitarians and civic leaders over politicians and future lobbyists won’t be effective.
Keep preaching your message, I'd like to hear more...
Yes, I realize it was not intended to give the citizens power but the writing of it belie their intentions. They did not include their intentions in the constitution so when we read "WE THE PEOPLE of the United States..." that automatically put the power in the hands of the people. Where it say each state "shall choose" congressman and elect a presidential and vice candidates that took it away from that elite group. Therefore the constitution reads POWER TO THE PEOPLE and not the government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo91XS5pVj8