Building a movement: The Applause Effect

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

How do you build a movement?

It's an interesting question - and one that's particularly compelling right now, as the Draft DeFazio movement gets underway.

After all, in our modern world, everyone is busy. Each and everyone one of us has too many things to do, and not enough time to do it. The competing priorities of work, home, family, school, and whatever commitments we've each made to our communities. It can be hard to squeeze just one more thing in -- even if that one thing takes only five minutes.

It's easy to think, "I'll let somebody else handle that. I'm too busy." It's easy to think that your own personal, individual involvement in something doesn't make a difference.

Take voting, for example. If you don't vote, will it really affect the outcome of elections you care about? Probably not. It's rare that one vote actually makes the difference. But together, each of our individual votes do matter.

ApplauseI call this The Applause Effect: Sure, in a large and crowded venue, if you stop clapping, no one will notice. But if everyone thought that way, the silence would be profound.

Each individual person clapping on their own is what creates applause from a crowd. And it's the same in politics.

In politics, it's easy to agree with an idea - and then fail to do anything about it. "I'm too busy" and "Somebody else will do it" and "What difference can I make?" are all easy and lazy ways out.

And, by the way, this is especially true for those of us who consider ourselves political professionals. "Oh yeah," we say, "hopefully we'll get some grassroots action on that...." as if we ourselves are not part of the grassroots. I'm guilty of this too -- thinking that I don't need to make a call, write a letter, sign a petition, or send a donation -- because, y'know, I'm a professional. Well, that's just a lazy way out. And, frankly, insults the importance of the grassroots we claim to believe in.

So, here's my pitch for the day: If you believe that Oregon needs to challenge Senator Gordon Smith, then donate $5 to Peter DeFazio via the draft movement. Even if you don't believe that Peter will ultimately decide to run - it's imperative that other possible candidates see that there really is broad support out there for a challenge. Even if you think another candidate is a better option, it's imperative that those other candidates see that we're willing to take on Smith.

And if you're "too busy" and you don't think that your involvement matters, well, I'm here to say that you're not - and you do matter.

Start clapping. Ask your friends to clap with you. Ask your neighbors to start clapping. Pretty soon, you'll have people around you who join in because clapping is the thing to do. And soon, the noise will be deafening.

And we'll have built something that matters. Even if Peter DeFazio ultimately decides against running, it's this small network - each one of us - that will have taken one small step toward victory in 2008.

So what are you waiting for? Make that small donation right now. Start clapping.

  • Ben Hubbird (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is profoundly right on, not just because of my support for the Draft DeFazio movement, but for the larger message on the importance of engagement. A friend and I just had an incredibly similar conversation on his MySpace blog.

    His basic argument:

    The most important political body is THE body, our own flesh and blood. Politics works inward-out. It is the personal choices about how we live our daily lives that create the world as we live it. The best defense of a politics of personal action, for me, has to do with the notion of "normalization." It is on the personal level that norms are constituted and maintained.
    ...
    My fear is that a lot of mainstream movements for progressive change place agency outside the individual. This, along with other factors within these movements, may in fact reenforce the power dynamics that maintain the status quo. To survive, I believe that global society will require a RADICAL reorganization, and a commitment to that sort of change must be a deeply personal action. Electoral politics will not provide it.
    And my response:
    I think people too often view small adjustments to their lifestyle as the endpoint of environmentalism, not as a means to the radical reorganization of society. It's easy, especially in Portland, to make those small adjustments. What's not easy, especially when you're talking to soccer moms and Nascar dads, is framing those adjustments as a challenge to the power structures which they tend to view as our fundamental life support systems.

    I don't know what the answer is. Maybe it's as simple as "we need both". I should mention that self-righteous political activists who drive SUVs and eat McDonalds piss me off just as much as self-righteous "lifestyle" activists who don't vote.

    Seems like if we can get "lifestyle" people to move towards a sense of collective responsibility, and get political people to move towards a sense of personal responsibility, we might all meet up somewhere and really make something happen.

    We managed to agree on that.

    In other words, it seems like personal activism is too often just one person clapping their hands in their living room, while political activism is too often just groups of people talking about hand clapping technique and telling other people to clap.

  • Michael Arrington (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Just gave my college-student $5. Whee.

  • spicey (unverified)
    (Show?)

    thanks for this reminder, Kari. Well put.

  • (Show?)

    Another dimension to this is money, which, as good lefties, we often eschew as slightly indecent. But chipping in a ten-spot here or a twenty there can have an enormous effect in demonstrating real support. One of the more impressive feats Barack Obama accomplished was not in raising $25 mil, it was in raising it from 100,000 donors. It's hard to look at that pool of people and not see real engagement.

    Every election cycle, I allocate a small amount of money to political donations (separate from my support of nonprofits like the ACLU)--say $200. It's not a lot more than a nominal amount. Yet with that small amount, I can contribute to important campaigns that will really appreciate having another donor on the list. We actually offset the power of money in politics when we contribute small amounts. Obama, with his 100,000 small donors, is not in debt to special interests. In fact, people donated so he wouldn't have to be in debt and could continue to be his own candidate.

    Peter DeFazio doesn't want to run because he'd rather govern than fundraise. For that reason alone, I might support him. (That I agree with most of his politics and admire the way he's conducted himself is more persuasive still.) I chipped in $25 to this effort to get him to run because I think that money will be a well-spent statement of my interest in his candidacy. If he doesn't run, well, so what? I'm still happy to have offered my support in a way he could see. Not a lot of money, but an important statement.

  • (Show?)

    Congrats Kari, to you and (I presume Jonathan) for getting this posted over at MyDD as well, it hopefully we get read by more people who need to be exposed to not just the specifics of the draft DeFazio push, but also to the larger concept. It speaks to a valid larger topic of collective action being a mosaic made out of individual small pictures (i.e. actions).

  • (Show?)

    OK, Kari, I'm in...though I'd almost wish it was a campaign chest for earmarked for whoever runs against Smith. If DeFazio elects not to...I hope he passes the funds along.

    I'm donor 172. Not a bad showing.

  • (Show?)
    <h2>Frank, I'm confident that if it's not DeFazio, he'll be a major ally for the candidate. I think the limit he can donate is $10,000 -- and we're a long way from that.</h2>

connect with blueoregon