An Ordinary Person
Something Inspirational
Leave a Comment
If you like seeing big ideas put into action on the potential for democratic participation in society using web 2.0 and traditional media you have to check out this YouTube video of the Lead India movement.
Tags: Asia, India, Lead India
Some Interesting Things I Read This Week
2 Comments
Here’s some interesting stuff making the rounds of the Web this week that I thought I’d share.
The first is an excellent article from Inside Higher Ed that speaks about the notion of American citizenship and what does it mean to live in a country which originated on the premise of participatory democracy and what it means to be “American” in this sense.
These principles, which form what can be called the “American theory of justice,” argue for human equality; for the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; for government established by popular consent; and for the right of the people to rebel should government cease to fulfill the purposes for which it was instituted. On this basis, the United States is more than a mere address, more than its history, and more than its demographics. It is, in its essence, an idea…
… concerns over the Americanization of newly arrived immigrants need also to take account of the fact that native-born citizens are nearly equally challenged at “becoming American,” that is, at the task of understanding the principles that established and largely continue to define this country. Even those born in America are failing to become American in this, the deepest sense.
The other is a 2-part analysis by Zack Exley in the blog Revolution in Jesusland. In “The Next Step for Christian Big Thinkers: Part 1 and 2,” he discusses the desire of many Christians to address enormous, society-level problems such as poverty or the despoiling of the environment.
These days, Christians are asking really enormous questions. They’re asking, “How can we eliminate poverty completely?” and “How can we stop harming the environment altogether.” What’s so great about them is that their faith in Christ leads them to believe that total redemption is possible. That is the miracle that makes their world irresistible to me…
…But when it came to, “HOW?” they could only offer the political economy of the personal: Be a good-hearted business person. And consume less.
From part 2:
Even the Christians who are doing the most see that what they’re currently doing is not enough to really fix this broken world. And so they feel God’s call to do more. But most think that means only more of the same: dig more wells, fund more micro loans, build more schools and orphanages, etc… And for sure, God is calling us to do as much of that as we possibly can.
But a certain dogma regarding social change has taken hold of the Christian imagination, and limited it to only projects that are small, local, “relational” and that they can personally witness themselves. Those who have been bitten by this dogma go on the faith that, if we all just live as followers of Christ in our neighborhoods, churches and workplaces, then God will work out the rest. They believe it’s wrong to work for social change at the level of the whole society because that requires political power, and therefore leads to all kinds of messy compromises, unintended consequences and, ultimately, corruption.
Tags: american citizenship, christianity, inside higher ed, revolution in jesusland
Good to Read
Leave a Comment
Check out this excellent book review of economist Gregory Clark’s A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World by Daniel Brook for The Nation magazine.
Clark seeks to answer the oft-asked question of why certain countries and societies are rich and why others are poor. Clark’s explanation argues that the values of the middle-class, Protestant work ethic is the primary driver of why certain countries are industrialized and prosperous and others are not.
Brook tears his argument to shreds to great effect. The best passage from the review was:
The real danger of the argument put forth in A Farewell to Alms is its assumption that political passivity, in rich and poor countries alike, fosters economic growth. Clark sees development as a rising tide that lifts all boats, with the biggest benefits going to the least skilled workers. If “worker discipline,” by which Clark means showing up on time (without children in tow) and working diligently through the day without breaking for snacks or cigarettes, is the key to development, workers should just buckle down and do as they’re told. But to the extent that developed nations have been able to build fairer economies, it has been because workers didn’t sit back and take it–they organized, in politics and in the workplace.
thisisatest2
Leave a Comment
This is the title
This is my summary
This is the rest of my post
END
Recent Comments
RSS Feed
Open Primaries
2 Comments
Yahoo columnist Ted Rail recently wrote an editorial that argues against Independents participating in the Democratic or Republican primaries.
I’d like to address his concerns point by point:
Rail’s thesis: the advantages of open primaries–which have yet to be statistically proven–come at a steep price.
POINT 1:
People who identify as Democrats or Republicans operate with different opinions than independents. Partisans tend to have stronger opinions on leading issues, are more aware of current events, have well-developed political value sets and tend to be more involved politically on an ongoing basis. For most independents, politics is much more a spectator sport. These folks are more amused than committed, tend to know less about the leading issues and candidates, and commonly operate with a less defined set of political values.
REBUTTAL:
How does Rail know this? Has he talked to actual Independents to determine their political views? Rail speaks in stereotypes and neglects the reason why Independents are independent–which is that they have tried the major parties and found them inadequate to represent their political beliefs, interests, and values. This is why I am an independent — not because I am less aware of the state of politics but because I am more aware than ever of the inadequacies of the two-party system in representing the interests of ordinary people.
POINT 2:
Independents complain that “closed primaries”–Democratic primaries are only open to Democrats, Republican primaries to Republicans–deny them a voice. In truth, registered independents choose not to vote in primaries. There is no practical reason to register as an independent. If you want to switch from one party’s primaries to the other’s, all you have to do is fill out a form. And, in the general election, you can vote for any party regardless of party affiliation.
REBUTTAL:
Actually there is a very good reason to declare Independent — it is to protest and to make a political statement that neither party is up to snuff in representing your interests. Being an Independent is, in itself, a deeply political act as much as registering Republican or Democrat. Rail trivializes this decision in his insistence that Independents just fill out a form to register. Disturbingly, that Independents cannot participate in a crucial step of democratic participation–choosing candidates for the general election–does not seem to bother Rail.
POINT 3:
The potential for mischief is enormous in open primaries: conservatives voting for the worst Democrat, liberals for the worst Republican. Even “honest” independents queer the process by reducing the chances of a hardcore liberal or conservative winning their party’s nomination.
REBUTTAL:
This is unsupported by empirical evidence. In states with open primaries, does what Rail describe happen at all? He doesn’t say. He only makes the assumption that it is so and that when it happens it is a dire thing.
He also neglects the argument that this is essentially a conflict between the rights of voters to participate in the political process and rights of political parties to set their own operating procedures. In such a conflict, the rights of voters should trump the rights of political parties every time.
If there are procedural problems, then let the Democrats and Republicans figure out a way to solve them. But let them solve it in a way that does not violate the rights of voters to participate in democracy.
POINT 4:
Moderate nominees moderate the enthusiasm of the liberals and conservatives who make up the two major parties’ bases. When your party’s standard bearer doesn’t promise much, there isn’t a lot to win. Nor is there much to lose if the enemy party’s nominee seems relatively reasonable.
REBUTTAL:
This is an argument that says participation of independents dilute the parties’ ideological message. Again, it is unsupported by any evidence or empirical data of any kind. The best way to determine this is to compare states with open primaries with states with closed primaries. Is the phenomenon of ideological dilution present in open primary states?
THE BOTTOM LINE:
Rail argues that the advantages of open primaries come at a steep price of ideological dilution of the parties and the potential for mischief happening at the voting booth.
I say that none of Rail’s dire predictions has happened in open primary states. If they have, we haven’t heard about it yet becoming an issue that there is a clamor to turn open primary states to closed primary states.
I argue that this primarily a case of a conflict between the rights of the voter and citizen to participate in democracy versus the rights of political parties to set their own procedures. In such a conflict the rights of the voter and citizen should take priority over the rights of political parties every time. Focusing too much on the rights of political parties has a steep price of millions of Americans who would like to participate in democracy to be barred from doing so.
Political primaries should be open for Independents to participate and vote.