This is extremely accurate! I can support this thesis with my recent experience in the US Senate Democratic primary here in Texas. Both candidates are transferring the online standard of "connection" to the real world. For those of us who came of age in the middle of the last century, this can feel like a hall of mirrors.
I attended an early Talarico rally. It was stage managed from top to bottom in order to be packaged for online content. It was not spontaneous, nor was it particularly emotional. As an oldster, I resented being used like an extra on a movie set. They were packing us in for the best effect on camera and film. They warmed up the crowd like at a live TV taping. He wasn't spontaneous in his speaking, nor did he feed off the crowd like a charismatic candidate would. The only good part was the crowd was eager to meet and greet each other. That was nice, but we were made to stand for two hours and literally denied chairs by the campaign when we asked for them. This is not smart politics.
I watched Crockett's announcement. She didn't speak - Trump did. What the hell? She was slowly rotated in her chair like she was checking out her look at the beauty shop. It came off as self-regarding, focused on Trump and completely devoid of anything about the voters of Texas who need some representation in Congress for the real-world matters which are wearing us down here.
The problem I have with these approaches is we are in the primary. This is about Democratic activists who like myself are not digital natives. Their online logic is weirding us out. Its kind of funny that online content is so devoid of actual content. It is a simulation of emotion, but ultimately ephemeral. I guess the play is to get young voters to vote in the primary. Those young voters better show up and vote in the general, because Republicans are way ahead of us online. I want to see what both of them intend to do in person in West Texas and in East Texas where the voters are going to demand substance.
That said, candidates and political parties can't solve this. Culture in real life must rise back up in an updated form. There is no one way to do it. Everyone just go find some new friends in person. Start up a card game, a coffee klatch, etc.If the people don't cohere and pressure political parties, they will continue using us as fungible commodities.
Thanks for this important reflection. As a labor organizer one of the biggest challenges is getting people to invest in the kind of "slow" spaces you're highlighting. In my case unionization is a long, messy process; for many it's simpler to post something online, or go to a rally or protest. Or just keep working. But I think as you say getting our actions out of the online space/mentality and squarely in the material is key.
I hope that didn't sound condescending, because I'm actually quite excited. I commented some time ago that I sensed the trajectory of your work heading in a certain direction, and why it's exciting is that you came out of the nonsensical world of corporate party politics, consultancy, and the rest. The arc from that shit, to dual power, being meticulously tracked for others to follow, in an accessible and relatable format?
This means the world, Kermit. Thank you! Credit to Cebalo and his essay for helping me see this and to you for taking it one step further. This is the missing piece I think.
The distinction between materially rooted movements and digital swarms is probly the most critical insight here. The early labor movement wasn't just organizing for demands, it was creating parallel infrastructure that sustained identity and solidarity beyond single issues. When you compare the ILGWU's health clinics and journals to today's episodic DSA meetings, the diference in durability becomes obvious. I've noticed something similar in community organizing work where online mobilization can gather crowds but struggles to convert them into sustained commitments once cameras leave, people drift back into isolation.
Would you participate in a grass-roots third-party movement that reduced its own campaign spending to practically nothing beyond its members' $5 annual donations to keep it going, and all such donations transparent? The media would cover us for free, simply for the novelty factor. The funding pledge would also reduce the power of the internet, as online influencing is expensive. Just being "everything both parties aren't" is a pretty simple message. Our candidates wouldn't make convoluted campaign promises, which are also expensive and rely on think-tank research and so on to create, package and sell. No more "With me as your [fill in the blank from small-town mayor to U.S. Senator] line of crap. Not coming from our candidates, anyway. This gaping silence on all such matters would speak volumes. Our only campaign promise—to eliminate money from politics—would be resoundingly impressive on the basis of its clarity alone.
One thing we WOULD promise if our party's popularity grew so quickly that we were able to win the mid-terms is this: We would impeach Trump, but not on the grounds of his various policy blunders and rank criminality. Instead of bringing in teams of legal experts to drone on about his all-too-obvious rampant disregard for the rule of law and "U.S. institutions," we would bring in psychiatrists. They would run the gamut from left- to-right-leaning, from Harvard to Pepperdine and Mount Sinai to the Cleveland Clinic whose expertise represents every nook and cranny of the Inventory of Mental Health Disorders. The expert on borderline personality disorder would agree with the expert on multiple personality disorder and the expert on mania and the expert on depression. They would all agree beyond a reasonable doubt that our president is not merely a full-blown narcissist (who isn't?) but, far more important, that he is stark raving mad.
Over the past 15 years we've built a local Transition community (transition from fossil fuels). We share activities, form friendships and discuss issues.
I think abstract politics is not compelling enough to form a community. The old left wing communities of 30s-60s (communists and socialists) had many social events.
This is extremely accurate! I can support this thesis with my recent experience in the US Senate Democratic primary here in Texas. Both candidates are transferring the online standard of "connection" to the real world. For those of us who came of age in the middle of the last century, this can feel like a hall of mirrors.
I attended an early Talarico rally. It was stage managed from top to bottom in order to be packaged for online content. It was not spontaneous, nor was it particularly emotional. As an oldster, I resented being used like an extra on a movie set. They were packing us in for the best effect on camera and film. They warmed up the crowd like at a live TV taping. He wasn't spontaneous in his speaking, nor did he feed off the crowd like a charismatic candidate would. The only good part was the crowd was eager to meet and greet each other. That was nice, but we were made to stand for two hours and literally denied chairs by the campaign when we asked for them. This is not smart politics.
I watched Crockett's announcement. She didn't speak - Trump did. What the hell? She was slowly rotated in her chair like she was checking out her look at the beauty shop. It came off as self-regarding, focused on Trump and completely devoid of anything about the voters of Texas who need some representation in Congress for the real-world matters which are wearing us down here.
The problem I have with these approaches is we are in the primary. This is about Democratic activists who like myself are not digital natives. Their online logic is weirding us out. Its kind of funny that online content is so devoid of actual content. It is a simulation of emotion, but ultimately ephemeral. I guess the play is to get young voters to vote in the primary. Those young voters better show up and vote in the general, because Republicans are way ahead of us online. I want to see what both of them intend to do in person in West Texas and in East Texas where the voters are going to demand substance.
That said, candidates and political parties can't solve this. Culture in real life must rise back up in an updated form. There is no one way to do it. Everyone just go find some new friends in person. Start up a card game, a coffee klatch, etc.If the people don't cohere and pressure political parties, they will continue using us as fungible commodities.
Great stuff, yes I totally agree! Thanks for sharing your experience at the Talarico rally, that's exactly what I was trying to capture in the piece.
Thanks for this important reflection. As a labor organizer one of the biggest challenges is getting people to invest in the kind of "slow" spaces you're highlighting. In my case unionization is a long, messy process; for many it's simpler to post something online, or go to a rally or protest. Or just keep working. But I think as you say getting our actions out of the online space/mentality and squarely in the material is key.
Oh, Evelyn! You came right up to the finish line with this one! Just a little further... 😰😮💨😅
The seemingly ephemeral political formation, the framework that both you and Cebalo are invoking, somehow without naming it is...Dual Power.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/dsa-libertarian-socialist-caucus-dual-power
I hope that didn't sound condescending, because I'm actually quite excited. I commented some time ago that I sensed the trajectory of your work heading in a certain direction, and why it's exciting is that you came out of the nonsensical world of corporate party politics, consultancy, and the rest. The arc from that shit, to dual power, being meticulously tracked for others to follow, in an accessible and relatable format?
We need this. Keep going. ❤️
This means the world, Kermit. Thank you! Credit to Cebalo and his essay for helping me see this and to you for taking it one step further. This is the missing piece I think.
The distinction between materially rooted movements and digital swarms is probly the most critical insight here. The early labor movement wasn't just organizing for demands, it was creating parallel infrastructure that sustained identity and solidarity beyond single issues. When you compare the ILGWU's health clinics and journals to today's episodic DSA meetings, the diference in durability becomes obvious. I've noticed something similar in community organizing work where online mobilization can gather crowds but struggles to convert them into sustained commitments once cameras leave, people drift back into isolation.
Would you participate in a grass-roots third-party movement that reduced its own campaign spending to practically nothing beyond its members' $5 annual donations to keep it going, and all such donations transparent? The media would cover us for free, simply for the novelty factor. The funding pledge would also reduce the power of the internet, as online influencing is expensive. Just being "everything both parties aren't" is a pretty simple message. Our candidates wouldn't make convoluted campaign promises, which are also expensive and rely on think-tank research and so on to create, package and sell. No more "With me as your [fill in the blank from small-town mayor to U.S. Senator] line of crap. Not coming from our candidates, anyway. This gaping silence on all such matters would speak volumes. Our only campaign promise—to eliminate money from politics—would be resoundingly impressive on the basis of its clarity alone.
One thing we WOULD promise if our party's popularity grew so quickly that we were able to win the mid-terms is this: We would impeach Trump, but not on the grounds of his various policy blunders and rank criminality. Instead of bringing in teams of legal experts to drone on about his all-too-obvious rampant disregard for the rule of law and "U.S. institutions," we would bring in psychiatrists. They would run the gamut from left- to-right-leaning, from Harvard to Pepperdine and Mount Sinai to the Cleveland Clinic whose expertise represents every nook and cranny of the Inventory of Mental Health Disorders. The expert on borderline personality disorder would agree with the expert on multiple personality disorder and the expert on mania and the expert on depression. They would all agree beyond a reasonable doubt that our president is not merely a full-blown narcissist (who isn't?) but, far more important, that he is stark raving mad.
I've have had similar thoughts.
Over the past 15 years we've built a local Transition community (transition from fossil fuels). We share activities, form friendships and discuss issues.
I think abstract politics is not compelling enough to form a community. The old left wing communities of 30s-60s (communists and socialists) had many social events.