I spent my entire fall semester organizing, mobilizing, surveying, educating and empowering young South Asian Americans for the 2004 election. As a Fellow with South Asian American Voting Youth (www.SAAVY.org), I was part of a national campaign that registered over 1500 people, and mobilized twice that number to the polling booths on November 2nd.
I did this organizing work for many reasons--personal, political, social reasons why I believe this sort of work is crucial in the SA community. The basic premise, of course, is that full democratic participation is good. Given my new found classic conservatism, I cannot wholly accept this premise. Moreover, I do not think people can vote for revolutions through the ballot. Candidates that are extreme in any way, or markedly different, are rarely successful in American political history. In times of war, people have relinquished freedoms for the illusive notion of security. We are socialized to fear the Other, the scary Arab or Muslim man with the flowing beard. We entrust our leaders to protect us and cooperate like obedient children should. The radical changes that happen to our freedoms, law and society are done through the power of elected officials. Yet, the questions still remain: Why is full democratic participation good? Why can't we vote for revolution?
The hierarchy of power is inherently flawed. The power of the ballot is as much an illusion as the the construction of fear and security threats. In a representative government, we give power to the select individuals who we believe can best advocate for the our interests. But the choices in national politics are never radical enough to spawn revolution because the rule of the majority is really a euphemism for mob mentality, or groupthink, or some other variant of a similar concept. We can't vote for revolution if our candidates are not progressive enough for revolution. Instead of voting for radical change, we can create our own revolutions by gradually changing and developing our communities and societies.
I did this organizing work for many reasons--personal, political, social reasons why I believe this sort of work is crucial in the SA community. The basic premise, of course, is that full democratic participation is good. Given my new found classic conservatism, I cannot wholly accept this premise. Moreover, I do not think people can vote for revolutions through the ballot. Candidates that are extreme in any way, or markedly different, are rarely successful in American political history. In times of war, people have relinquished freedoms for the illusive notion of security. We are socialized to fear the Other, the scary Arab or Muslim man with the flowing beard. We entrust our leaders to protect us and cooperate like obedient children should. The radical changes that happen to our freedoms, law and society are done through the power of elected officials. Yet, the questions still remain: Why is full democratic participation good? Why can't we vote for revolution?
The hierarchy of power is inherently flawed. The power of the ballot is as much an illusion as the the construction of fear and security threats. In a representative government, we give power to the select individuals who we believe can best advocate for the our interests. But the choices in national politics are never radical enough to spawn revolution because the rule of the majority is really a euphemism for mob mentality, or groupthink, or some other variant of a similar concept. We can't vote for revolution if our candidates are not progressive enough for revolution. Instead of voting for radical change, we can create our own revolutions by gradually changing and developing our communities and societies.
Comments
Post a Comment