Direct Action vs. Political Action - False Choice?
Jul 26, 2009 11:40:45 GMT -5
Post by dustonegt on Jul 26, 2009 11:40:45 GMT -5
In many of the threads we have arguments between people who seek to change things through the political process and education and others who feel mild forms of direct action (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_action) are going to make a difference.
There is also a lot of debate about whether the political process has failed and is no longer useful.
I would like to share my thoughts on this.
Whether you like Ron Paul or not, his campaign in the 2008 Republican primaries sheds a lot of light on this. He went in knowing he had little more than a snowball's chance in hell of securing the nomination. He sacrificed time, money and frustration not to secure the nomination, but to get out there and share his message. It worked; things like the Campaign for Liberty weren't thought of as possible prior to 2008.
I don't think the political process is serving us as it should, but could still prove useful in other ways--perhaps even ways that lead it back to where it should be.
I also think the debate between political vs direct action is a false choice. I really feel that both are essential components to the overall picture.
If those working in the political arena aren't backed up by those who chose direct action (or the threat of them doing so), there is no credible 'or else' if those who get power illegitimately start abusing the people.
It is much like a concealed handgun. Chances are you never have to use it. Even if you have to draw on somebody, you probably don't have to fire. The credible threat of force often brings a situation to a peaceful conclusion when used by reasonable people.
Direct action and political action aren't contradictory ideas, they complement each other and increase the effectiveness of both.
But how does the political arena help direct action? People would think those engaging in direct action are totally unreasonable and cannot be dealt with if it weren't for the like-minded people in the political arena. Basically they know that things can de-escalate from direct action back to the political arena.
I think they are also both useful from the 'hope for the best, prepare for the worst' perspective. Working in politics and education are a good way to hope for the best. Direct action or preparing mentally and physically for direct action are ways of preparing for the worst.
Like they say in the army: "Hope is not a method."
There is also a lot of debate about whether the political process has failed and is no longer useful.
I would like to share my thoughts on this.
Whether you like Ron Paul or not, his campaign in the 2008 Republican primaries sheds a lot of light on this. He went in knowing he had little more than a snowball's chance in hell of securing the nomination. He sacrificed time, money and frustration not to secure the nomination, but to get out there and share his message. It worked; things like the Campaign for Liberty weren't thought of as possible prior to 2008.
I don't think the political process is serving us as it should, but could still prove useful in other ways--perhaps even ways that lead it back to where it should be.
I also think the debate between political vs direct action is a false choice. I really feel that both are essential components to the overall picture.
If those working in the political arena aren't backed up by those who chose direct action (or the threat of them doing so), there is no credible 'or else' if those who get power illegitimately start abusing the people.
It is much like a concealed handgun. Chances are you never have to use it. Even if you have to draw on somebody, you probably don't have to fire. The credible threat of force often brings a situation to a peaceful conclusion when used by reasonable people.
Direct action and political action aren't contradictory ideas, they complement each other and increase the effectiveness of both.
But how does the political arena help direct action? People would think those engaging in direct action are totally unreasonable and cannot be dealt with if it weren't for the like-minded people in the political arena. Basically they know that things can de-escalate from direct action back to the political arena.
I think they are also both useful from the 'hope for the best, prepare for the worst' perspective. Working in politics and education are a good way to hope for the best. Direct action or preparing mentally and physically for direct action are ways of preparing for the worst.
Like they say in the army: "Hope is not a method."