Pragmatic Participatory Politics

Word on the street is that participatory democracy is becoming more popular with the searing issues of immigration, war, and health care to name a few. The idea that regular, everyday, people should have a say in the decision making policies in the local, state, regional, and national arenas have also experienced a boost with the expansion of the blogosphere as well as the explosion of the other means of transmitting information through more direct avenues of influence and power. Wikipedia, You Tube, MySpace, Facebook, and old-fashioned emailing are playing a vital role in balancing the communicative flow between the powers that be and the regular American. And if one couples these developments with the already proliferating mobile devices, the regular person becomes more able to connect with other like-minded individuals in their efforts of exerting political influence and affecting social change. Aren’t these good developments? Yes—partly; potential setbacks—old and new—often accompanies technological advances. While these developments may afford more access to particular groups of people (the youth) who have never had much of a formal say in politics, and the American public in general, this market has not extended itself to those groups of peoples who may need it the most, and it still does nothing to alleviate the poverty in American discourse and action. The notion of American citizenship remains entrapped in the dogmatic web of the “normal” political process, the dilemmas woven by the triangulation of American political ideology and the pervasiveness of fast-food politics and activism. The goals of this piece are to briefly discuss these problems plaguing the American system while providing possible insights to addressing these problems.

The Triangulation of American Political Ideology

Left and right, (neo)conservative and (neo)liberal, and Democrat and Republican are the labels that usually come to mind when one thinks of the American political spectrum. However, the independent tendency has remained relatively strong in the midst of American polarization. Now, with more visible figures in the media (i.e. Bill O’Reilly), in politics (Michael Bloomberg), and everyday people staking out a stance independent from the usual trappings of GOP and Democratic and liberal and conservative politics, it appears that another pole has been driven into the American political soil. While in many ways this should be celebrated—since it gives many on the left or right refuge and it can account for the complexities within ideological positions—this position (like every position) also has its drawbacks. One of the most harmful drawbacks is one that is not essentially independent or moderate; it’s the problems of dogma.

This dogma seems to suggests a socio-political delusion that posits the moderate, or independent, as almost innocent from any socio-political missteps. Proponents of this position cannot be considered insensitive because s/he does not believe s/he is; it is against the law to actually be sexist, or racist. Consequently, if one mentions these, this person may think the person bringing those issues up as racist, hypocritical, and maybe fascist. This position posits itself to be one that is sensible, fair, balanced, and expects everything encountered in the socio-political realm—news, television shows, documentaries, etc.—to be objective, to present both sides to the issue and be free from dogma, hypocrisy, and propaganda. However, what many seem to fail to realize is that human reality is more complicated than just trying to discern what may be contradictory and propagandistic. Also, there is stubbornness in this position itself, and this stubbornness, or arrogance, can affect how one takes in and disseminates information. Consequently, if this person encounters a situation (especially in within the larger media conglomerate) that is perceived to be “fair and balanced,” there may be no questioning of the overall presentation (there may be questioning of the particular individual that this person may already disagree with). This in itself hinders any person from critically engaging within the political process. This person is only willing to ask the obvious questions; the questions about those already depicted as being on the left or the right. This person may not be as quick as to ask the questions of why a particular person, or agency, was chosen to discuss a topic, the purpose of that presentation, and what that particular representation means in the overarching political discourse. Political moderation can be, at times, as arrogant and dogmatic as any political position.

Do not get me wrong, it is admirable to aspire to think outside the box (independent) and/or pursue moderate politics. Yet, just like anyone on the left or right poles of American politics, those who identify with the center or the independents can also become fixated with their positions rather than actively seeking solutions with an open mind. In the moments between publications, I have encountered quite a few individuals who would rather dismiss particular claims, questions, and potential solutions because they were either “leftist” or conservative rather than actually engaging the claims, questions, potential solutions, and the problems. Is it becoming too radical to actually have a conversation with someone who thinks differently as opposed to participating in arguments for no gain?

The Poverty of American Political Discourse & Action

This leads to the second criticism of the American political climate—the poverty of American political discourse and action. This poverty is not anything new; it is a mix of old and new concerns regarding the operating American political system. It is not just characterized by the 30 second scathing sound bite; it has included the advent of “rock-star” politics, polarized representations of issues, fast-food protest, and the traditional anti-intellectualism. Rather than tackling the complexities of individual candidates and issues, many media outlets focuses more on the celebrity status of politicians, thus extending the gap between regular people and politics. Instead of trying to provide a conversation that does justice to complex issues, most mainstream media shows on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, supposedly provides fair and balanced debates with a few people representing “each side.”

While no approach is perfect, it is very problematic in the sense that many people are expected to accept these people’s views as stand-ins for the actual. This is unacceptable. These representations are often extreme and do not account for any complexity within the particular position. They can also harm a particular side’s case more than help. If I do not agree with the messages purported by some hip hop artists, I would not want to be associated with Jason Whitlock because of how he paints the culture with such a broad brush and seeks to belittle anyone who disagrees. But, as seen on CNN and MSNBC, he was often called upon to provide “balance” in the debates regarding hip hop and the Don Imus controversy. And as Jon Stewart discussed with the hosts of Crossfire, this approach does nothing to foster any critical thought in the media, or the populace. No one questions who is being asked to “represent” these perspectives and how these individuals fit into larger scheme in getting a particular point across. This has been one of the many issues with shows like Hannity and Colmes and the defunct Crossfire where each side is numerically represented but everyone usually knows who is dominant in the conversation. No disrespect to Alan Colmes, but Sean Hannity has the stronger personality, more known credentials (books, radio show, and even hosts his own TV show—Hannity’s America), and is the anchor of the show. Everyone knows who is running the show.

Another aspect of political framing is the manner in which members in the media talk about particular issues. Since much of the news media has begun to resemble entertainment and argumentation, many participants have relied upon particular labels as a means of denigration and dismissal rather than adequate description. It is not too difficult to figure out what Lou Dobbs is trying to accomplish when he says “Communist China.” This is not to say that China is perfect, or “better” (if there is such a thing), but anyone who may passively accept this label seems to forget that China has become formidable players in the global economic marketplace—a long stretch from the holistic imperialism (domination of other countries politically, spiritually, and economically) engaged by the Soviet Union during the 20^th century. His, as well as others, framing illegal immigration as one of amnesty also seemed to have contributed to the deficiency of discourse around the subject.

Fast-food activism also accompanies the polarization of representation, soundbites, and celebritization of fast-food politics. What is meant by fast food activism? Take the rising gas prices for example. Everyone who drives and consumes goods have little patience for the rising prices. They are stretching our already constrained budgets. So, what do we do? We forward email messages to each other instructing us to boycott gas purchases for a day. What? How is that going to lower gas prices? Okay, instead of boycotting all gas, we will boycott a particular gas station in order to foster competition. Realistically, neither of those will work unless we all can demonstrate our willingness to give up gasoline for an extended period of time. The success and failure of political action and movements rests upon the amount of work that we are willing to put in. If one does not demonstrate that they are willing to give up something to get something in return, what incentive does any gas company have to lower its’ prices, especially if they have great friends in high places?

What was missing from the proposed protest was an investigation of how, we, the people can do to alleviate our own individual dependence on gas. Also what are other kinds of action that can be engaged during and after the boycott? Do we write letters to our congress people? How do we educate everyone regarding this crisis? Are any of us willing to make more responsible vehicle purchases in the future? Long term vision is needed for success, not just a good idea.

Bill Clinton’s relatively successful presidency (depending on you ask), his infidelities, and his post-presidency endeavors have catapulted him in the political stratosphere. Al Gore has also experienced similar widespread success. While there is not a whole lot wrong with celebrity politicians—or celebrities themselves—it becomes problematic since concerned citizens are left craving substance because many in the mainstream media are only feeding upon the celebrity status of public officials. The more the public worries about what color Hillary Rodham Clinton wears, the cost of John Edwards’ haircuts, or the amount of wives Rudolph Giuliani has taken in the past leaves little time for vigorous debates surrounding the issues and solutions concerning the most vulnerable in American society.

The Evolution: Pragmatic Participatory Politics

So after describing the contents of the half-empty glass of contemporary American politics, how does one move themselves into position to see the glass half full? The direction is not necessarily relegated to the left or the right. One can seek to retain any position, the point is to become critically engaged and move! It is inspired by the nature of what Dr. Cornel West describes in his book, The Evasion of American Philosophy as “Prophetic Pragmatism.” It is not about the name or a badge of pride. It is about doing; it is about moving and reproducing. One never says they are doing pragmatism, or acting on behalf of pragmatism, they are too busy acting. That is how it is participatory. It is open to all people. It is as open to the bottom fifty percent of America as it is to the fifty-one to ninety. The top ten percent may be too afraid. Human activity is the fuel of the action, of any particular movement. The human activity is also what makes it political since we live in a country where mass political action is rare. One’s action is only called pragmatic afterwards—in the phase of reflection.

Pragmatic participatory politics (PPP) upholds the tangible values of literacy, education, judicious open-mindedness, connectivity and intersectionality of issues, (collaborative) action, community-building, and reflection in the efforts of striving for a common cause. This form of democracy also endorses the intangible values of individual and collective responsibility and independence and self-determination, flexibility, acceptance, respect, healthy criticism, optimism, encouragement, and creativity at it’s best and constructive criticism, and confrontation at its worst. Practitioners of a pragmatic participatory politics seek to have the ability to begin at their own standpoint (chosen or given) and move toward a center, hopefully changing themselves along the way. While not one ideology is the universal corrective for anyone’s problem, we all have the capacity to act and reflect. There is a common cause.

Pragmatic Participatory Politics does not encourage a blind faith in any system, method, or point of view. It is unafraid. Pragmatic Participatory Politics seeks to investigate the problem and explore a variety of means to addressing the issue. It also allows for the reconfiguring of dominant systems with marginal parts. It requires a pragmatic blending of systems in order to account for the realities of the fortunate and the most vulnerable. It requires everyone to think of everyone. It requires everyone to be accountable everyone else. It calls for new ways of lifting all of humanity from the bottom—with each person and group having a handle. It calls for evolutionary systems of community and politics.

So, how is this supposed to be carried out? Well that is for particular individuals and communities to figure out. Pragmatic Participatory Politics is situational. It is far from perfect. In other words, the road map is in keeping up with the world. Pragmatic Participatory Politics is about acknowledging human rights as well as individual and group rights. It is not about the institutional snobbery that can be found in government, business, or higher education. It is risky. It is possible that Pragmatic Participatory Politics can allow someone to be who they are and work with someone else who may consider themselves different. It allowed Aaron and me, who would have considered us to be on the left at the time, to work with a more conservative Hank Osborne on the problems of homelessness. Consequently, it allowed all of us to foster a long-lasting relationship—something that may not have occurred if we would have been preoccupied with getting each other to think in a particular fashion. Ultimately, Pragmatic Participatory Politics is about seeing the world both as a glass half-empty and half full. The most controversial idea has always been defying convention—whether one is a Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, or even Moderate.