The Death of Boredom and the Future of Politics

Can politics work without a civic sphere?

How can we have a loneliness epidemic when we are connected like never before? It is a problem that perplexed Robert Putnam in "Bowling Alone". He put it mostly down to TV, internet, and the growth of passive and isolated forms of entertainment generally. When you read between the lines of history of any time before about one hundred years ago, you realize that people were, before the modern age, bored out of their minds. Who plays cards? Who puts on operas, or runs numbers, or goes bowling? Who needs an Easter pageant, or a three-to-four-hour baseball game? Only people with nothing better to do. If you wanted music, you had to make it. If you wanted conversation, you had to share it. Human society was built on simple quid pro quos- social rewards and resolution of boredom and isolation for personal participation.

But that deal has broken down dramatically in the modern age. We have a thousand channels, talk radio, recorded music. With AI, we are getting personal chatbots and bespoke romantasy partners. Sports have slid tectonically from participation to spectation. Boredom is a thing of the past, though if you do want to play cards, plenty of computers are willing to take a hand.

An interesting article in the New Republic knit this together very nicely with the problems we are having in politics. In the US, political engagement is increasingly shallow, leaving the field to extremists who can still call up foot soldiers to storm the ramparts. What happened to the Occupy movement? For all its inherent logic and flash organization, it fizzled into nothing because it gave little thought to its own institutionalization (indeed, was allergic to organization) and durable engagement, all the while railing against the overwhelming organization and deep pockets of the entrenched systems of capitalism. The Left is notoriously inable to herd itself into an effective, organized force. While capitalism is naturally organized and institutionalized by virtue of naked self-interest and corporate structures, civic groups grow out of far more disparate, and evanescent, motivations. Unions have been an attempt to organize around a countervailing, while still self-interested logic, which inherently limits their reach and coherence. The true civic sphere, however, is threadbare.

Political parties have similarly shallow roots. In California, the governor's race has 61 candidates, and little control by the party establishment, particularly by the Democratic establishment that supposedly runs the state. Like other non-profits, parties ask little of their adherents, other than possibly a monetary contribution, and wouldn't dream of holding truly social events that could deepen civic engagement. Expectations of civic engagement have hit rock bottom, mostly because people have tuned out across the civic spectrum. The testimonial dinner is a relic. The ice cream social is unheard of. Service organizations like Rotary and Elks are fossils, unions are on life support. Events and organizations that previously kept people entertained and involved in a civic way are scarce. These traditions both trained people for common action, and led to the kind of networking and contact that fed political consciousness and activity. They also helped to vet people directly for office holding (see the recent Swalwell case). 

Bernie Sanders can draw a crowd, but do those crowds go out, organize, and persist?

Republicans have found a partial solution to these problems by ginning up endless outrage through their propaganda outlets, predominantly talk radio and hate TV. While motivating, the results have, naturally, been intellectually disastrous and have us teetering on the edge of fascism. Democrats, as the more level-headed and progressive temperament, have not used the same tools effectively, and shouldn't. What should they do? Well, the field for civic engagement is pretty wide open. For example, one could imagine a tax on political advertisements, say 10%, which is collected by the government / FEC, and sent to counties or municipalities for civic engagement purposes, either election-related or not. This would create a fund for local talks, events, civic education, and the like that would, in theory, complement the advertising that is increasingly vacuous and meretricious. 

Another approach is direct action, where Democrats could use some of their energy and resources to build civic engagement, outside of straight campaigns. Just as the Republicans have harnessed ancillary issues like abortion and tax cuts that energized specific segments of their base, Democrats have to be a bit more canny about asking for more engagement and offering more involvement. Climate change is a great example, where a wide spectrum of individual action (trash pickups, solar panel installation, water quality testing) could be integrated into civic engagement that builds party alignment and ultimately, institutional strength. All great religions know that the more you ask, the more you get, and the deeper the commitment of followers. Additionally, the left already has a bewildering array of non-profits, whose efforts would ideally be more closely integrated with the Democratic umbrella to generate more organizational power- synergy or leverage, in business-speak.

On the other hand, how could civic disengagement be accommodated rather than fought? One approach might be to enhance the vetting and exposure of candidates by having nominating conventions at the local level. Even though California has an open primary, and thus does not grant each party automatic spots on each ticket, the parties should not shy away from selecting, testing, and promoting candidates. This should not be a central commitee operation hidden in the dark, the province of interested apparatchiks, but open forums that promote philosophies as well as people.

We are in a tough position, trying to keep politics alive in a world where its underpinnings- of civic engagement, communal organization and leadership, and simple conviviality- are fading in a deluge of individualized enjoyments. Political parties are at the forefront of this change, and need to think very deeply about how to keep themselves relevant and effective.

• Tax reform
• Is power based on insults?
• Everybody has deterrence these days.
• Who is being served here?
• Patient, heal thyself.
• Norway is going electric.