It's easy to delight in the Hastert/Foley meltdown, and how it's hit a
national nerve. Building on all the administration's abuses, failures, and
lies, the cover up of this out-of-control congressman may just give America
the inadvertent gift of a chance to finally change course.
As I read the daily stories, though, I fear that too many of us will devour
them with relish, then do little more than gloat. I worry that we'll be so
busy following each breaking revelation about the self-destruction of a
regime so drunk on it's own power it's finally overreached, that we'll end
up doing nothing but cheering. At a moment when those long disengaged or
disagreeing might finally be receptive, that would be a profound loss.
Because the degree of the electoral shift in this key election will likely
be decided by the volunteer energy that turns out borderline participants to
vote.
Many of us have followed the Foley/Hastert story by reading about it on
progressive websites, and these sites have done a great job of placing it in
context. Yet the time we spend online also risks being part of the problem.
I'm not talking about the ability to click and donate. That's played a
profound role in making the Democratic Party at least partially one of small
contributors again, and helped bring within reach the once improbable
challenge of helping the Democrats take back the House and Senate. The
dollars we contribute may make the difference between winning and losing.
But we also need to get out from behind our computers, and realize that not
all politics can be accomplished with the click of a mouse. That means
walking local precincts, traveling to swing districts, signing up for the
remote voter calling programs of groups like MoveOn, and talking to people
who don't normally agree with us. Just reading wonderful blog posts and
forwarding inspiring emails won't get sympathetic or newly sympathetic
voters to the polls.
This last would seem obvious, but most of us don't participate in these more
direct ways. For instance, MoveOn now has three million members, but just
38,000 have signed up so far for a powerful new program where people from
less competitive geographic areas call potentially supportive voters in
swing states or districts. Thirty-eight thousand people will make a real
impact, but nothing compared to 300,000, which would be just a tenth of
their members, or the half million or more who have signed their on-line
petitions. I've seen similarly precipitous drop offs in practically every
progressive group that's rooted in online communities.
This isn't a critique of the online organizations trying to make this
happen. To take the case of MoveOn, few progressive groups in America's
history have enlisted more people to be involved in at least some modest
ways, gotten out more useful information, or raised more grassroots dollars
for critical races and issues. But we need to look at why more people
haven't found ways of acting offline.
Most of us do have overloaded lives. Clicking and emailing gives us a chance
to act despite them. But between now and the election, most of us could find
a few additional hours to make calls or maybe even a day or two to walk
precincts or monitor polls on the day of the vote. But somehow we use the
excuse of lack of time to rationalize a larger withdrawal.
We also may not feel our small individual efforts will really make a
difference, a resignation that echoes that of many of the people we're
trying to reach and turn out-those who similarly discount the importance of
their individual votes. When I volunteer to walk a precinct or call voters,
I envision the modest impact of my actions being multiplied by that all the
other volunteers who are joining me. If we have 15,000-20,000 progressive
campaign volunteers in my state of Washington, which we often have, and we
each make the different for just two votes apiece, that's 30,000-40,000
votes in a state where the past two elections have seen a US Senator elected
by 2,400 votes and a governor by 129 votes following three recounts. But for
many of us our reflex fatalism leaves us passive spectators, dismissing the
power of our potential efforts before we even attempt them.
Even if we're not feeling pessimistic, or at least not during the last
couple weeks, we still may end up acting as little more than political
spectators. Given a juicy scandal like the Foley/Hastert affair, it's just
too tempting to spend the entire time we devote to politics just following
the news, on this or other issues, until we never have to face the question
of how to actually reach beyond the chorus of the already committed. The
potential for people to become political junkies didn't originate with the
Internet. We could always spend free hours reading piles of magazines and
newspapers. But it's far easier in a world of endless connected links.
Our blogs and listsservs keep us informed, offering facts and arguments to
use in convincing friends, neighbors, and coworkers. Reminding us that we
aren't alone in our concerns, they give us quick and efficient ways to
pressure our elected representatives to take wiser and more courageous
stands--which if they do speak out will create powerful additional ripples.
They help us reflect on every conceivable key issue, including the critical
question of how to head America back from the present destructive course.
But by themselves they don't reach the unconvinced--those who'd potentially
be receptive, but remain silent or disconnected. If we want to actually
change America's political culture, we're going to have to find ways to act
offline.
We now have an unexpected opportunity. Just under a month until a pivotal
election, during which the Republican game plan has just imploded and voters
long part of their coalition are beginning to question and bolt. A month
during which our perspectives and outreach just might make the difference in
deciding who chairs the committees, who brings bills to the House or Senate
floor, and who has the ability to pass or block legislation. But this will
only happen if we find ways to reach out. To do that, we're going to have to
step back at some point from our keyboards and screens, turn away from our
favorite listsservs and blogs, and expose ourselves to the vulnerability of
talking to people we don't already know. The stakes are worth it.
The URL for MoveOn's voter calling project is
http://pol.moveon.org/phone/volunteer/pv.html?id=9027-5265689-JvbbykBFwfSb0p
6ySZMVew&t=4
Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A
Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of
2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous
books include Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time.
See
www.paulloeb.org To receive his monthly articles email
sympa@lists.onenw.org with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles
