Reply #10: It's not about giving up, but rather how much I want to pay attention.

[beachmom]

I guess I am in a disagreement with liberal activists and maybe even John Kerry to a certain extent about the role of "citizens" in government. Where I think liberal activists have a role is helping out with elections: both donating and volunteering. That is real and is measurable. It is our only bargaining chip in my view. Where I think we are less influential (or really not influential at all) is trying to participate in governing. Quite simply put, that is not our job. We are not paid to write bills and pass laws. Members of Congress are. We can give feedback, but that is usually done via opinion polls, and also by top opinion makers (which is a collection of elites from mainstream publications as well as a choice few top bloggers. That's not us). But calling one's Congressman or Senator every week? Pissing and moaning in little read rants? Sorry, that is a waste of time (except as therapy, maybe), and carries little influence. I suppose a well written letter to the President MAY get his attention, but that is like playing the lottery -- one in a million shot.

There are well funded liberal organizations who do lobby Congress, and serve as an alternative voice to corporate lobbyists. But again, these folks are professionals, not citizens. This is their job/career. Maybe, a well written letter to them can influence them, which in turn may influence a member of Congress, but that is something only done occasionally.

I just think the reason the Obama White House has had trouble organizing after the election is because the grassroots is set up best for winning elections and working on issues completely divorced from individual politicians and even from political parties (like environmental groups, health reform orgs, etc.). But to think you are going to use citizens to individually call or knock on doors to pass some vague thing called "health care reform", again, it's a waste of time.

Joe Klein had a phrase that I 100% agree with: he spoke of liberal or conservative activists "spamming" Congress. I think that is the right characterization of it. I mean, these members of Congress have pollsters. They know the numbers. They have to weigh the polls of constituents coupled with not pissing off their base too much so that they can get donations and volunteers. Conservatives are FAR more influential over their electeds than liberals are. Why? The numbers. Conservatives represent a bigger chunk of Republicans than liberals are of Democrats. In short, what works for the GOP base (like killing immigration reform) will NOT work for the Democratic base. And even there, conservative activists are oftentimes disappointed even after their spamming, which adds up to a lot of callers urged on by religious right orgs or right wing talk radio.

Of course, Blue Dogs can get their money from non-grassroots circles, so they are even LESS influenced by the spamming, and MORE likely to go with the corporate lobbyists who will help them come the next election when volunteers and small donors will be sparse. Yes, it is a pain for an office to get "spammed". But it has been clear to me for some time that with some exceptions (I do think Sen. Kerry cares a great deal about how the grassroots views his actions, as long as it is fair criticism), I do not think these actions work. And they may even be counterproductive. Which means, there is little we can do right now to influence what happens next. Which brings me back to my main point of whether I want to pay attention so much to the day to day sausage making talk for which I simply cannot influence the outcome. Of course, I want to remain a well informed citizen, but I do read a few things on line and magazines. I am not ignorant (which really IS a problem in our country). I just don't think I want to know every detail of what is happening in Congress anymore.

But the 2010 Governor's race in Georgia? That is something for which I think I can help out on.