Borderline Crimes

How does one move from a condition of rightless-ness to one of entitlement, from a condition of despair to one of empowerment? We are so fixated on representative institutions as the means by which we might effect change, that we forget to ask how one brings about that condition that enables certain kinds of change in the first place. Moreover we neglect to pay attention to the specific kinds of change for which these systems permit, as well as the kinds of change that they preclude. At a moment such as ours in the United States, when a President who postured as an agent of change has been marred by bank bailouts and unthinkable compromises on healthcare, we are met with two options. One is to demonize that President as a traitor, hypocrite, liar– in other words, to focus on the President’s personal failures rather than the failures of the institution of the President. The other option is to give pause to the question of what sort of change is possible in the first place. President Obama attempted to sell us “change we can believe in,” but the real task at hand, if we want the kind of positive reform we desire, is to change what we can believe in.

The dominant political dogma in America holds that the ballot box is the most effective means of reform or change, thus the first task at hand is to pay close attention to the underlying logic of this means of political participation. Voting is discursively conceived of as a way to make our voices heard. Voter registration campaigns emphasize this point in trying to convince us that we can effect change this way, but one wonders how “change” can possibly be non-partisan, unspecific, apolitical, and not bound to any particular program or agenda, as these registration campaigns often manifest themselves. Under this model of voting, political engagement is basically reduced to polling. If voting is merely a way of making one’s voice heard, it’s not quite clear why it’s a better alternative than writing a letter to the editor. Moreover, incumbency re-election in Congress is often well over 90%, so the idea that voting in and of itself leads to tangible changes is not convincing at face value, and indeed it renders citizen control over government a mere illusion.[1] Furthermore, even if it can be said that this pattern of re-election is not problematic, one can criticize the very structure of the voting system and the way that districts are often drawn in order to give one party a non-competitive monopoly on seats in Congress.[2] Gerrymandering brings into question whether those who win elections really do so on the merits or as a result of careful engineering.

Though I believe electoral reform is necessary, that is not my purpose in writing this. My critique is intended to apply even in the case of a more democratic voting system. What is left unanswered by the dogma of voting is the following question, especially relevant today: what can we do when voting doesn’t lead to the kinds of changes we need? Is it really the case that all we can do is sit back and watch, cursing the politicians involved, while merely continuing with business as usual, hoping for a miracle?

It is precisely this condition of powerlessness and desperation that helps us to see what is at stake when we pretend that voting is the only, or best, means of political participation. Voting fails to address the relationship of power between constituents and elected representatives, and in fact only re-affirms it, even imparts upon it a sense of legitimacy. Media coverage gives the impression that all there is to political tension in this country is the predictable duel between Republicans and Democrats–it never has enough depth to conceive of political tensions in a different, more important, and more relevant way: as between the governing class (which encapsulates both the Republican and Democratic party machines, as well as other loci of political power) and the people left out of that class. The difference can be understood in the disproportionate influence some people or entities have on government, the disproportionate amount of power they hold. As much as politicians feign service to the people, other controlling interests guide their legislative and executive actions. [3]

Our sense of empowerment is abated by a media that is basically a spokesperson for the governing class. We can observe this in mainstream media coverage of health care reform, which is covered as if it were a horse race and the only question for us as viewers is who will win. The media treats us as observers of politics rather than participants in it. We see and hear little about what regular people who are not a part of the elite governing class actually want to see in healthcare reform, and when we do, we only get their views in terms decided upon by the political elite. “Do you agree with so-and-so’s plan?” The biggest sham of recent weeks is the broadcast media’s fixation on the townhalls, as if the healthcare debate were really taking place there rather than in private meetings between career lobbyists, insurance executives, and government officials. [4][5][6]

The worst part, though, is that allegedly grassroots and progressive organizations encourage us into only passive participation in the debate. At best, MoveOn.org and other “Political Action Committees” tell us to e-mail our senators and congresspeople, and perhaps to write our newspapers or donate to campaigns. It is all about “keeping the discussion alive” and supporting elements of the political elite. But there is a great danger attached to confusing the presentation of our opinions with political action. Politics is not about opinions–that is a matter of philosophy; of arguing for the best policy, or advocating particular reforms over others. Those are important discussions that must take place in open, candid, and innovative ways. But though they might generate political momentum, they do not accomplish it in and of themselves. A discussion does not automatically transform into a politically effective agency. Other forms of empowerment are necessary. If 66.8 million Americans who had voted for President Obama last November had gone on strike instead, healthcare reform may have happened months ago, and the government’s response to what is now perhaps sensationally called the “Global Financial Meltdown” might have been qualitatively different. These tactics have to do with real politics, with challenging and re-shaping the way power is allocated in our society.

These two threads regarding the kind of political participation encouraged by the media and our institutions intersect at an important point. Politics is not so much about what is possible as it is about our ability and freedom to decide what is possible–it’s not about possibilities, but about the possibility of possibilities. When a poll or a ballot gives us a certain number of pre-packaged options, it is removing us from the preceding process of deciding for ourselves our own possibilities. The elements of society that decide what is possible–rather than the ones who decide between pre-screened possibilities–are the ones that are actually empowered and capable of playing a role in shaping their fate. When our disillusionment or dissatisfaction is met with the suggestion that we merely register to vote, we are similarly disempowered and disenfranchised, and we are discouraged from strikes or other actions that may actually prevent or threaten to prevent the persistence of the status quo in a tangible, economic, and physical way. We cede our power to the political class instead of participating in the political process ourselves in a meaningful way.

It is necessary for us to rediscover these avenues, which are often met by criticism from the media and the governing class. These tactics re-arrange the political process so that rather than taking place only amongst members of the political elite, like representatives and lobbyists, it takes place instead between the people and the elites, bringing the interests of the people (and not members of the political elite) to the fore. And while some might suggest weak protests outside congressional offices, results might only be seen if we generalize these protests so that they take place outside our own offices, in the streets, the workplace, the university–in every facet of our lives. By leveraging our power to disturb the reign of the political class, we can forge political capacities that we lacked before, effecting change–without a ballot box, and without an election. When we stop contemplating “change we can believe in” and instead start to change what we can believe in, when change is not merely an object, a noun to which we can only devote our emotional faith, when change becomes a verb, something that we do, we might actually start to see a change in the distribution of power in our society.

Resources
[1] Re-election Rates Over the Years, OpenSecrets : http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php
[2] If the idea that all votes are equal is a fundamental aspect of democracy, the opening line of this game gives the lie to our system: “As a mapmaker, I can have more of an impact on an election than a campaign.” http://www.redistrictinggame.com/
[3] Lobbying Spending Database, OpenSecrets http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s
[4] Dem, GOP centrists meet in secret http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dem-gop-centrists-meet-in-secret-2009-06-16.html
[5] Is Obama a back-room blue dog? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/is-obama-a-back-room-blue_b_259780.html
[6] Why aren’t progressive groups protesting Obama’s back-room deal with Big Pharma? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/why-arent-progressive-gro_b_253279.html