Can you offer an objective definition of "activist" which includes the folks you think should be included and excludes those you think should be excluded?
For example, is the divide between liberal/progressive "activists" (all true activists) versus conservative "activists" (all being cluster-fucks)? Or does it have to do with some spec…
Can you offer an objective definition of "activist" which includes the folks you think should be included and excludes those you think should be excluded?
For example, is the divide between liberal/progressive "activists" (all true activists) versus conservative "activists" (all being cluster-fucks)? Or does it have to do with some specific behaviors, regardless of political affiliation?
I used to consider myself an activist (intermittantly, depending on whether I was at that time engaged in activism (beyond voting, donating, talking w friends, writing letters to the editor or to representatives, which I didn't consider activism per se). If I was travelling to Nicaragua on Sandinista solidarity delegations or editing a local newsletter or helping organize protests, those were the times I thought of myself as engaging in activism rather than just ordinary civil engagement. I didn't tend to describe myself to others as an "activist", I just did it.
Today if somebody self-identifies as an "activist", the main thing that conveys to me is that they most likely have massive confirmation biases and have a weaponized and over-simplified concept of the world. Close to identifying themselves as an ideologue. Not always (everyone can be understood as an individual), but most often. That they have self-identified is one potential clue. Being an "activist" is highly valorized today, a positive thing to enhance one's social status. That social status seeking was never part of the activism I engaged in.
Passion - you really are guided by reason. I love your reply. No, I cannot offer an objective definition of "activist", but let's try to find one. Remember, objectivity is not my strong suit, so keep that in mind - okay?
I belong to a multi-disciplinary activist network. Most activists I know have anywhere from 10 to 40 years’ experience as activists, organizers and civic entrepreneurs. A lot of activists lend their professional expertise and knowledge to the work (lawyers, accountants, doctors, linguists, etc.). Rural land-use and cultural planning is my specialty. I also bake cakes and cookies.
There are no college degrees in activism, so activists must teach themselves, learn from others, learn from mistakes, and eventually teach new activists.
Newbie activists have no frigging idea what they’re doing and no respect for those who do. They walk into some meeting, look around and decide, they are the most qualified person in the room. Near as I can tell, they make this decision based on our appearance.
Activism is the people’s game, not a game show. Activists have power, The know how to use it. And they do not squander it or give it away. Activists don’t look like powerhouses; we don’t wear fancy suits, drive fancy cars and a lot of us wear thrift store clothes. But Senators, Congressmen and elected officials take our calls, and they take our meetings. National political parties send people to meet with us. We raise millions of dollars to fund our own work. If we call, 500 people show up. Politicians and VIPs, and CEOs, do not mess around with people power. More often than not, they try to hire us.
True story. One year a newbie joined one of our activist organizations. About six months later, Mary was on our agenda, but was late, so we waited for her report. Mary finally arrived and began her report. When newbie, Debby realized that Mary had just come from a meeting with our Senator, she came unglued. Off she went on a lecture about “our image” and the appropriate attire for a meeting with a “Senator” and proper etiquette (OMG). Newbie Debby had no frigging idea who she was talking to.
Mary never went to college, or law school. She taught herself the law, passed the bar the first time, got her license and had been practicing labor law for decades. At night, Mary taught the law to farmworker’s children. Just like Mary, her students pass the bar on the first try, get their license and practice law. If Mary makes the call, 1,500 people show up. You don’t speak that way, to a woman like Mary.
So, Passion, what do we do with newbie activists? How do we manage their expectations? And what do we call them?
There seems to be two issues about "activists" here.
(1) Distinguishing old timers with experience, from newbie activists working within the same movement. I would think that might just involve teaching some respect for elders in the movement (elders by experience, not just age). _This is of course leaving out people whose activism is declared in their online profiles and who may never have even met, much less worked alongside, a long term activist in the field like yourself (much less Mary)._
(2) Distinguishing Stacie Abrams and Marjorie Taylor Greene. This appears to be a different distinction than #1. I'm sure we can find people who have worked in the trenches against abortion for decades; would they qualify as "activists" due to their long experience?
Passion, we’re making progress – yes? Good thinking. Good questions. Good phrasing.
(1) By necessity, civic activists are self-educating. I promise you, us, old-timers are learning from younger newbies whose technology, social media and communication skills far surpass ours. Put the old-timers together with young newbies and they are dynamite good and super effective.
On their own, newbie activists are counter-productive, even destructive. 1. They don’t know how government works and lack the civic education necessary to effect a change of policy, systems or directions. 2. They have tons of information but little experience using that information to craft a vision. 3. They lack strategic skills and organizational planning skills. 4. They are not clear on the difference between civic education and political propaganda.
I mentor several young activists and they are far beyond me in many ways, all they lack is experience. After the Roe decision came down, two of my young activists told me they finally understand how important it is to know how government works. Right now, they are studying the U.S. Constitution and their state Constitutions. Who knows how long it will be before they study state and local government. Until then, they rely on me. Passion, relying on someone else for basic 101 stuff, is not okay.
(2) Absolutely! My views on civic activism have nothing to do with politics. Pro-life activists are amazingly good. I don’t like their tactics, I don’t agree with their goals, and I fear they are short-sighted, but I have tremendous respect for the work these activists do. The commitment pro-life activists have demonstrated for the last fifty years is awesome.
Crisis pregnancy centers are ubiquitous in rural America. Women count on their support, only to discover that support ends very quickly after delivery. Over 400,000 children are already in the system, and these numbers will increase rapidly. The idea that experienced pro-life activists might walk away, now the Roe was overturned, terrifies me.
Wait a minute here. I was about to post and read what I wrote and caught something new. Is there a generation gap here? Young (age 16 – 30) newbie activists are terrific to work with. It’s the older, over 30, newbies that are so destructive. Passion, have you any thoughts on that?
Interesting observation about 16-30 yo newbie activists and 30+ yo newbie activists. There could be something about the birth cohort, or just about current stage of maturity (or some of each of course). We could check back in 15 years and see if the same pattern repeats with the same ages, or if the pattern shifts upward in age by 15 years. (Joking about doing that, not joking about that being a useful datapoint if one could wait for the results).
---
So if the distinction you want to make between Stacy Abrams and Marjorie Taylor Greene is the number of years of experience as activists, how many more years of activism would the latter need before graduating from cluster-fuck to activist?
Passion, are we discussing activism, or my opinion of Marjorie Taylor Greene? If you want to discuss Greene, say so. If you want to defend Greene, do it. If you want to praise her, I’d like to hear what she does that pleases you. Your turn.
Talking about activism and the proper definition of the term "activist".
I find MTG atrocious for many reasons. The length of time she has been active is not among them, however.
But the contrast between MTG and Stacy Abrams was used above to distinguish "activists", so I'm looking for what criteria are being used, other than our liking one more than the other. We very likely agree on which of those two we prefer; that is not the issue.
Dave, I chose Greene and Abrams as examples, because they are both very well known. While I did not choose them, because of their political affiliations, I can see how someone might get that impression. My bad.
In my mind, activism is civic work, the work of citizens. Civic activists keep politics out of their work. In that regard, I'm a bit of a purest. If a civic organization accepts donations, or direction from any political organization, I do not participate.
Changing a system, crafting public policy, or effecting a change of direction takes a long time. Over the years, civic activists must work with anyone who happens to be in office.
My own civic activism revolves around public policy and the land-use system (rural America is my specialty, because that is where I live). As I mentioned elsewhere, I work in multi-disciplinary teams that serve a coalition of civic organizations. The more diverse our personal backgrounds, the more knowledge we bring to the table (if that is a diversity measure, so be it).
I watched the film, Uncle Tom, you linked. It is moving and I can see its appeal. However, I've come up against too many think tanks not to recognize their influence.
Conservative billionaires’ think tanks have exerted tremendous influence in rural communities, and their prescribed and formulaic policies have done tremendous damage. Our farmers, ranchers, factories and small businesses are suffering so badly, I’m not sure they can recover.
The left has nothing even remotely comparable. In my state, our colleges, universities and training schools escaped the conservative trap by adopting the civic activist’s position (no politics). This has enabled them to move into the future. In more than one arena, Kentucky today, is more progressive than California.
PS. Thanks for the link, I enjoyed the film - a lot.
raffy, no foul intended toward you. Activism and political partisanship (which I find to be a reason why nothing gets better) sometimes has overlap. Your "𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 "𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴" (𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳-𝘧𝘶𝘤𝘬𝘴)" was implicitly partisan so it did have something to do with allowing me to use such an explicitly (mentioned parties by name) example of conservative activism. Where we draw a line in how we think of it is separated by a broad and blurry line.
You mention "Conservative billionaires." Are they conservative? They own the media which they use effectively to shape public opinion. How does it tilt? A big part of that is to divide people with common interest (the poor and working class of all "races". As George Carlin famously said, "The owners don't give a f*k about you!" they just want to keep us divided so we won't get together and com for them with pitchforks and torches. It has always been that way. When financial ends were just waving at each other, rather than meeting, and we lived in an edge of town rented mobile home, who did I have more in common with, an economically stressed black family or "the owners"? Promotion of the racial divide is all about preventing us asking ourselves that.
During the p̶a̶n̶d̶e̶m̶i̶c̶ panic, which party enthusiastically destroyed small businesses with the shutdown, as if the covid virus was not a danger in large chain grocery stores, Walmart, Costco or for Amazon workers? Small businesses that were the result of 2nd mortgages on the owner's home and their life's dream. Who benefited from that? How do people become multimillionaires on a congressman's pay other than them knowing who the winners and losers of their legislation will be? Who always seems to benefit and who gets screwed? I see the Ds and Rs as partners in these crimes while making suckers out of the people (that video spoke to that). Is it activism or partisanship do call that stuff out?
Depending upon the issue we are discussing, I may appear to be left or right but given the lack of logic for why the left right issues are on the side they are on, I think that people who line up on all issues with a political tribe have been conned. Things are complex and rarely simple enough to fit on a bumper sticker.
Dave, you are accusing me of something I did not do. I said, and I quote myself, "Marjorie Taylor Greene is a fluster-cluck, not an activist." I did not say, conservative activists were fluster-clucks. I did not even mention politics. As I wrote earlier, in reply to Passion, I think the pro-life activists are awesome activists. I don't have to agree with their goals, to respect them, or their work.
Regarding those billionaires, I was specific, and I quote myself, again, “Conservative billionaires’ think tanks have exerted tremendous influence in rural communities, and their prescribed and formulaic policies have done tremendous damage.”
Dave, I don’t know where you live. For all I know, you could have a balcony, a backyard or a 1,000 acre ranch. I am talking about rural America and all I’ve ever seen, or heard of out here, are think tanks funded by conservative billionaires. I’ve been following these beasts since I first encountered one in the mid-1990s. Back then, the state had passed a mandate requiring jurisdictions to reduce waste going into landfills by 50%, or face $10,000. a day fines. We had ten years to meet that mandate and more than 8,000 square miles of land, people, businesses, aerospace and military installations to consider.
A coalition of engineers, elected officials, attorneys, local activists and our local bank, city and county managers got together and figured out how to do it. The local bank, a business and the city county partnered on the funding, signed the contracts and the facility got built.
Five years before the deadline, we’d reduced waste going into the landfill by as much as 81% a month. That project extended the life of our landfill by 20 years, added more than 80 jobs, reduced city and county waste management costs, turned a profit for the owner and added a new revenue stream for the city and county – without raising trash fees for anyone at all. Thanks to that project, no one in our community has ever separated their trash and recyclables.
Suddenly, a conservative billionaire think tank arrived, determined to shut that facility down. Why? What could possibly be wrong with a project that successful? Dave, can you guess the answer?
The coalition put me to work, finding out what this think tank was and who these people were. As I said, I’ve been following these think tanks ever since.
Over the years, these think tanks have sent in people to oppose or support prison expansion, sex education programs in our schools, general plan updates, water management, hydroponic, family, boutique and organic farming, affordable housing, wastewater treatment, water reclamation, chemical manufacturing, mining and timber operations, wind farms and healthcare system. Dave, can you guess what their stake is, in this rural region? Can you guess what they supported and what they opposed?
As I also said, “The left has nothing even remotely comparable.”
I don't want to get into a partisan demonization of the "enemy" debate. That's not what the commentary is about. As I've written, the demand for lock-step compliance to the party checklists (both of them) from on high is the reason nothing gets done. If I found a genie in a bottle my first wish would be for the end of political parties to disconnect issues from irrational party linkage. The second would be to remove money (bribery by lobbyists) from politics.
My bad and sincere apology. That was a cut and paste from a comment by Passion guided by reason in the thread. I lost the who reading all the whats. The ideas are more important to me than who said them. Sloppiness on my part. There are 66 comments at the time of this comment. Names scroll off the screen.
Can you offer an objective definition of "activist" which includes the folks you think should be included and excludes those you think should be excluded?
For example, is the divide between liberal/progressive "activists" (all true activists) versus conservative "activists" (all being cluster-fucks)? Or does it have to do with some specific behaviors, regardless of political affiliation?
I used to consider myself an activist (intermittantly, depending on whether I was at that time engaged in activism (beyond voting, donating, talking w friends, writing letters to the editor or to representatives, which I didn't consider activism per se). If I was travelling to Nicaragua on Sandinista solidarity delegations or editing a local newsletter or helping organize protests, those were the times I thought of myself as engaging in activism rather than just ordinary civil engagement. I didn't tend to describe myself to others as an "activist", I just did it.
Today if somebody self-identifies as an "activist", the main thing that conveys to me is that they most likely have massive confirmation biases and have a weaponized and over-simplified concept of the world. Close to identifying themselves as an ideologue. Not always (everyone can be understood as an individual), but most often. That they have self-identified is one potential clue. Being an "activist" is highly valorized today, a positive thing to enhance one's social status. That social status seeking was never part of the activism I engaged in.
Passion - you really are guided by reason. I love your reply. No, I cannot offer an objective definition of "activist", but let's try to find one. Remember, objectivity is not my strong suit, so keep that in mind - okay?
I belong to a multi-disciplinary activist network. Most activists I know have anywhere from 10 to 40 years’ experience as activists, organizers and civic entrepreneurs. A lot of activists lend their professional expertise and knowledge to the work (lawyers, accountants, doctors, linguists, etc.). Rural land-use and cultural planning is my specialty. I also bake cakes and cookies.
There are no college degrees in activism, so activists must teach themselves, learn from others, learn from mistakes, and eventually teach new activists.
Newbie activists have no frigging idea what they’re doing and no respect for those who do. They walk into some meeting, look around and decide, they are the most qualified person in the room. Near as I can tell, they make this decision based on our appearance.
Activism is the people’s game, not a game show. Activists have power, The know how to use it. And they do not squander it or give it away. Activists don’t look like powerhouses; we don’t wear fancy suits, drive fancy cars and a lot of us wear thrift store clothes. But Senators, Congressmen and elected officials take our calls, and they take our meetings. National political parties send people to meet with us. We raise millions of dollars to fund our own work. If we call, 500 people show up. Politicians and VIPs, and CEOs, do not mess around with people power. More often than not, they try to hire us.
True story. One year a newbie joined one of our activist organizations. About six months later, Mary was on our agenda, but was late, so we waited for her report. Mary finally arrived and began her report. When newbie, Debby realized that Mary had just come from a meeting with our Senator, she came unglued. Off she went on a lecture about “our image” and the appropriate attire for a meeting with a “Senator” and proper etiquette (OMG). Newbie Debby had no frigging idea who she was talking to.
Mary never went to college, or law school. She taught herself the law, passed the bar the first time, got her license and had been practicing labor law for decades. At night, Mary taught the law to farmworker’s children. Just like Mary, her students pass the bar on the first try, get their license and practice law. If Mary makes the call, 1,500 people show up. You don’t speak that way, to a woman like Mary.
So, Passion, what do we do with newbie activists? How do we manage their expectations? And what do we call them?
There seems to be two issues about "activists" here.
(1) Distinguishing old timers with experience, from newbie activists working within the same movement. I would think that might just involve teaching some respect for elders in the movement (elders by experience, not just age). _This is of course leaving out people whose activism is declared in their online profiles and who may never have even met, much less worked alongside, a long term activist in the field like yourself (much less Mary)._
(2) Distinguishing Stacie Abrams and Marjorie Taylor Greene. This appears to be a different distinction than #1. I'm sure we can find people who have worked in the trenches against abortion for decades; would they qualify as "activists" due to their long experience?
I would not dignify Greene with any title like "activist." She is an utterly vile human being and the is the alpha and the omega.
I saw her burst into laughter at the mention of thousands dying of COVID. She thought it was funny, She deserves impalement.
Passion, we’re making progress – yes? Good thinking. Good questions. Good phrasing.
(1) By necessity, civic activists are self-educating. I promise you, us, old-timers are learning from younger newbies whose technology, social media and communication skills far surpass ours. Put the old-timers together with young newbies and they are dynamite good and super effective.
On their own, newbie activists are counter-productive, even destructive. 1. They don’t know how government works and lack the civic education necessary to effect a change of policy, systems or directions. 2. They have tons of information but little experience using that information to craft a vision. 3. They lack strategic skills and organizational planning skills. 4. They are not clear on the difference between civic education and political propaganda.
I mentor several young activists and they are far beyond me in many ways, all they lack is experience. After the Roe decision came down, two of my young activists told me they finally understand how important it is to know how government works. Right now, they are studying the U.S. Constitution and their state Constitutions. Who knows how long it will be before they study state and local government. Until then, they rely on me. Passion, relying on someone else for basic 101 stuff, is not okay.
(2) Absolutely! My views on civic activism have nothing to do with politics. Pro-life activists are amazingly good. I don’t like their tactics, I don’t agree with their goals, and I fear they are short-sighted, but I have tremendous respect for the work these activists do. The commitment pro-life activists have demonstrated for the last fifty years is awesome.
Crisis pregnancy centers are ubiquitous in rural America. Women count on their support, only to discover that support ends very quickly after delivery. Over 400,000 children are already in the system, and these numbers will increase rapidly. The idea that experienced pro-life activists might walk away, now the Roe was overturned, terrifies me.
Wait a minute here. I was about to post and read what I wrote and caught something new. Is there a generation gap here? Young (age 16 – 30) newbie activists are terrific to work with. It’s the older, over 30, newbies that are so destructive. Passion, have you any thoughts on that?
Interesting observation about 16-30 yo newbie activists and 30+ yo newbie activists. There could be something about the birth cohort, or just about current stage of maturity (or some of each of course). We could check back in 15 years and see if the same pattern repeats with the same ages, or if the pattern shifts upward in age by 15 years. (Joking about doing that, not joking about that being a useful datapoint if one could wait for the results).
---
So if the distinction you want to make between Stacy Abrams and Marjorie Taylor Greene is the number of years of experience as activists, how many more years of activism would the latter need before graduating from cluster-fuck to activist?
Passion, are we discussing activism, or my opinion of Marjorie Taylor Greene? If you want to discuss Greene, say so. If you want to defend Greene, do it. If you want to praise her, I’d like to hear what she does that pleases you. Your turn.
Talking about activism and the proper definition of the term "activist".
I find MTG atrocious for many reasons. The length of time she has been active is not among them, however.
But the contrast between MTG and Stacy Abrams was used above to distinguish "activists", so I'm looking for what criteria are being used, other than our liking one more than the other. We very likely agree on which of those two we prefer; that is not the issue.
"𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭/𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 "𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴" (𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴) 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 "𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴" (𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳-𝘧𝘶𝘤𝘬𝘴)? 𝘖𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘣𝘦𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘴, 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯?"
Oh my! Definitely without regard to political affiliation. This is legitimate activism, and its thoughts are appropriate for this discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bef-2FUbQcI&t=1183s&ab_channel=UncleTom
Dave, I chose Greene and Abrams as examples, because they are both very well known. While I did not choose them, because of their political affiliations, I can see how someone might get that impression. My bad.
In my mind, activism is civic work, the work of citizens. Civic activists keep politics out of their work. In that regard, I'm a bit of a purest. If a civic organization accepts donations, or direction from any political organization, I do not participate.
Changing a system, crafting public policy, or effecting a change of direction takes a long time. Over the years, civic activists must work with anyone who happens to be in office.
My own civic activism revolves around public policy and the land-use system (rural America is my specialty, because that is where I live). As I mentioned elsewhere, I work in multi-disciplinary teams that serve a coalition of civic organizations. The more diverse our personal backgrounds, the more knowledge we bring to the table (if that is a diversity measure, so be it).
I watched the film, Uncle Tom, you linked. It is moving and I can see its appeal. However, I've come up against too many think tanks not to recognize their influence.
Conservative billionaires’ think tanks have exerted tremendous influence in rural communities, and their prescribed and formulaic policies have done tremendous damage. Our farmers, ranchers, factories and small businesses are suffering so badly, I’m not sure they can recover.
The left has nothing even remotely comparable. In my state, our colleges, universities and training schools escaped the conservative trap by adopting the civic activist’s position (no politics). This has enabled them to move into the future. In more than one arena, Kentucky today, is more progressive than California.
PS. Thanks for the link, I enjoyed the film - a lot.
raffy, no foul intended toward you. Activism and political partisanship (which I find to be a reason why nothing gets better) sometimes has overlap. Your "𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 "𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴" (𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳-𝘧𝘶𝘤𝘬𝘴)" was implicitly partisan so it did have something to do with allowing me to use such an explicitly (mentioned parties by name) example of conservative activism. Where we draw a line in how we think of it is separated by a broad and blurry line.
You mention "Conservative billionaires." Are they conservative? They own the media which they use effectively to shape public opinion. How does it tilt? A big part of that is to divide people with common interest (the poor and working class of all "races". As George Carlin famously said, "The owners don't give a f*k about you!" they just want to keep us divided so we won't get together and com for them with pitchforks and torches. It has always been that way. When financial ends were just waving at each other, rather than meeting, and we lived in an edge of town rented mobile home, who did I have more in common with, an economically stressed black family or "the owners"? Promotion of the racial divide is all about preventing us asking ourselves that.
During the p̶a̶n̶d̶e̶m̶i̶c̶ panic, which party enthusiastically destroyed small businesses with the shutdown, as if the covid virus was not a danger in large chain grocery stores, Walmart, Costco or for Amazon workers? Small businesses that were the result of 2nd mortgages on the owner's home and their life's dream. Who benefited from that? How do people become multimillionaires on a congressman's pay other than them knowing who the winners and losers of their legislation will be? Who always seems to benefit and who gets screwed? I see the Ds and Rs as partners in these crimes while making suckers out of the people (that video spoke to that). Is it activism or partisanship do call that stuff out?
Depending upon the issue we are discussing, I may appear to be left or right but given the lack of logic for why the left right issues are on the side they are on, I think that people who line up on all issues with a political tribe have been conned. Things are complex and rarely simple enough to fit on a bumper sticker.
I am normally loath to put a link to something I've written but rather than cut and paste I'll give you this on why I wrote that last paragraph. https://medium.com/@dmurray110/the-doom-of-political-parties-acec668393df
Dave, you are accusing me of something I did not do. I said, and I quote myself, "Marjorie Taylor Greene is a fluster-cluck, not an activist." I did not say, conservative activists were fluster-clucks. I did not even mention politics. As I wrote earlier, in reply to Passion, I think the pro-life activists are awesome activists. I don't have to agree with their goals, to respect them, or their work.
Regarding those billionaires, I was specific, and I quote myself, again, “Conservative billionaires’ think tanks have exerted tremendous influence in rural communities, and their prescribed and formulaic policies have done tremendous damage.”
Dave, I don’t know where you live. For all I know, you could have a balcony, a backyard or a 1,000 acre ranch. I am talking about rural America and all I’ve ever seen, or heard of out here, are think tanks funded by conservative billionaires. I’ve been following these beasts since I first encountered one in the mid-1990s. Back then, the state had passed a mandate requiring jurisdictions to reduce waste going into landfills by 50%, or face $10,000. a day fines. We had ten years to meet that mandate and more than 8,000 square miles of land, people, businesses, aerospace and military installations to consider.
A coalition of engineers, elected officials, attorneys, local activists and our local bank, city and county managers got together and figured out how to do it. The local bank, a business and the city county partnered on the funding, signed the contracts and the facility got built.
Five years before the deadline, we’d reduced waste going into the landfill by as much as 81% a month. That project extended the life of our landfill by 20 years, added more than 80 jobs, reduced city and county waste management costs, turned a profit for the owner and added a new revenue stream for the city and county – without raising trash fees for anyone at all. Thanks to that project, no one in our community has ever separated their trash and recyclables.
Suddenly, a conservative billionaire think tank arrived, determined to shut that facility down. Why? What could possibly be wrong with a project that successful? Dave, can you guess the answer?
The coalition put me to work, finding out what this think tank was and who these people were. As I said, I’ve been following these think tanks ever since.
Over the years, these think tanks have sent in people to oppose or support prison expansion, sex education programs in our schools, general plan updates, water management, hydroponic, family, boutique and organic farming, affordable housing, wastewater treatment, water reclamation, chemical manufacturing, mining and timber operations, wind farms and healthcare system. Dave, can you guess what their stake is, in this rural region? Can you guess what they supported and what they opposed?
As I also said, “The left has nothing even remotely comparable.”
I don't want to get into a partisan demonization of the "enemy" debate. That's not what the commentary is about. As I've written, the demand for lock-step compliance to the party checklists (both of them) from on high is the reason nothing gets done. If I found a genie in a bottle my first wish would be for the end of political parties to disconnect issues from irrational party linkage. The second would be to remove money (bribery by lobbyists) from politics.
I second the motion. Let's vote. Its unanimous. The deed is done.
My bad and sincere apology. That was a cut and paste from a comment by Passion guided by reason in the thread. I lost the who reading all the whats. The ideas are more important to me than who said them. Sloppiness on my part. There are 66 comments at the time of this comment. Names scroll off the screen.
No worries, Dave, I'm lost half the time myself. Smiles to you.