It
seems to us somewhat ironic, but presidential election years are simultaneously
times of greater citizen engagement in political matters, and also times when
it is more difficult to mobilize active participation in issue advocacy and non-electoral
activism in general.
It
really seems that elections, and especially the presidential race, suck almost all
the oxygen out of the room.
People are paying attention to whatever outrageous
thing Donald Trump has said today, or the state of the contest between Hillary
and Bernie; who has endorsed whom; what attack ads are airing; what the polls
are saying; what voting irregularities have been noticed; whether third party
candidates will make any inroads and similar questions, rather than focusing on
issues including climate change, war and peace, economic justice, etc.
Of
course a primary reason people support certain candidates and oppose others is
their issue stands. So issue and electoral activism are not antithetical. This
said, when citizens back off from engaged involvement in the issues and instead
focus all their time and attention on the candidates, less serious issue work
gets done.
And,
of course, depending on the race, there often is no candidate running who
progressives really agree with on critical issues. Peaceworks, as an
educational non-profit, does not endorse, campaign for or oppose any candidate.
We do pay close attention to where they stand on the issues. And we can’t help
but note that, despite the very real differences between the candidates, often
our views on critical issues including war and peace or climate change are not
embraced by either of the major party candidates running for a particular
office.
In
practical terms, if one is hoping to see change on an issue—say ending U.S.
war-making in the Middle East, achieving significant cuts in the Pentagon
budget and redefining the role of the U.S. military to being a defensive
force—we quite likely will find that the candidate with the best positions,
from our perspective, on these issues has a platform that falls far short of
what we’d embrace.
This
means that if we—as individuals, of course—decide to work for candidate A, who
we see as somewhat preferable to candidate B, the most we can do on war and
peace concerns, while working for him or her, is to articulate their positions,
despite the deficiencies we see therein. As it is often noted, politics is the
art of the possible.
Climate
change is perhaps the defining issue of our day, as it presents a uniquely
existential threat. But you wouldn’t know that if you just listened to what the
candidates are campaigning on. And, come election day, we are often forced to
choose between a climate change denier and a candidate who acknowledges the
reality of climate change, but rejects taking the sorts of actions needed to
effectively address the threat.
So,
each of us, as an individual, needs to decide what level of involvement we
might have in the electoral process. Some choose to eschew electoral politics
altogether. Others vote, but otherwise are not engaged. Still others choose to
volunteer time and/or donate money to support the candidate(s) of their choice.
Whatever
level of electoral involvement we choose, however, we should not forget that
issue work—education and advocacy—is also critically needed. In fact, it is
issue activism that moves these concerns front and center in the electoral
arena. Were it not for 350.org, and the
climate movement more broadly, shining a bright spotlight on Keystone XL, it is
highly unlikely that this awful project would have been stopped by President
Obama, or that Sec. Clinton, who was initially a strong proponent, would have
come out against it.
We,
here at Peaceworks, know that whoever prevails at the polls in November—whoever
is inaugurated in January—our presence in the public dialogue on the issues of
the day will still be sorely needed, throughout the election year and beyond.
And
for Peaceworks to be here to raise our shared concerns requires active
participation and financial support. We thank everyone already involved and everyone
contributing. And we trust that, as much as you might involve yourself in the
electoral process, you won’t leave us gasping for a breath of air. Our work is
needed now, and it certainly will be still once the 2016 electoral dust
settles.
