[Summit] Politics on the list

Sat Jan 12 19:27:45 UTC 2008

like Bob Trudeau, i'd like to offer 2 cheers for politics -- a vital
undertaking too often denigrated in American life.  since when are
neighborhood associations not political?  they are inherently and
unavoidably so.

It seems entirely appropriate to inform list participants about petitions
to get on the ballot in our congressional district.  while i think we can
all agree that some sort of political advocacy isn't permissible here,
that line is very hard to draw, except at the extremes.  'political'
issues are routinely discussed, even advocated, on this list.  as they
should be.  while electoral politics (parties, elections etc) are rarely a
subject of conversation here, fundamental issues of urban development and
the built environment that involve particular interpretations of the
historical past, and of the struggles of American cities, as well as the
contestation of legitimate interests, and winners and losers, are
(legitimately) posted all the time.  try to have a conversation about the
problems with Providence public schools without getting political, or
about the struggles of small business in American cities.  a neighborhood
association that didn't actively debate these things wouldn't be worth
much.  and if you think there is some sort of neutral ground outside of
politics here...well, give me a call when you find it (if your cell gets
reception there).

while i would probably agree that actually having the SNA endorse local
candidates or parties would stretch the boundaries of legitimacy (though
even here, i wonder), i certainly wouldn't object to the SNA organizing a
candidates forum, or a gathering at which local advocates of parties and
candidates make the case for their favorite.  the request for signatures
to get on the ballot is similarly legitimate.  in fact, if i had thought
about it, i would have posted the information about how to run as a
delegate on the list, without giving it a second thought.

neighborhood associations historically have served a variety of functions,
some of them good (enriching the institutional underpinnings of civil
society, representing the underrepresented in city politics, fostering
face to face community, incubating local economic growth, improving
schools, etc) and some of them bad, or at least narrowly self-interested
(keeping out black people, keeping out poor people, trying to avoid
carrying a fair share of public responsibilities, boosting property values
over everything else, NIMBYism, etc).  but the most important function
they serve, i believe, is as a locally-based public sphere, enabling us to
step beyond our atomized work and family lives, contest ideas, find common
ground, aggregate interests, etc.  they also should, ideally, have the
function of sometime politicizing the personal -- bringing citizens
together to see that seemingly random, individualized issues or problems
are in fact social and political, and only solved through collective
action.  collective action is what politics is.  and what is a
neighborhood association, if not a venue for collective action? 
inevitably, there will be differences of opinion -- and differences based
on economic interest.  sometimes (usually), there is no synthesis.  I
frankly can't imagine a neighborhood association list that doesn't reflect
the range of opinion that one might find at a face to face meeting, where
we might vehemently disagree about issues that directly pertain to
neighborhood or city issues.  to try to remove 'politics' from a
neighborhood association is an undesirable pipe dream.

i like to think that what bothers Paul here is a civility issue, not a
politics issue.  but to expect to never see anything you disagree with on
this list, at an SNA meeting, or anywhere else in public life, is to claim
a right that no liberal democracy can possibly grant.  i see this in my
students all the time -- they seem to have this implicit belief that they
have a right not to be challenged, not to hear things that make them
uncomfortable, and not to have to defend their own views, actions and
assumptions in public.  we expect everything to have a solution, a
conclusion, preferably quickly.  public life doesn't work that way, and it
shouldn't.  this view seems to be ubiquitous in our culture.  giving
reasons, demanding reasons is at the heart of public life in a liberal
democracy.  it is nothing to be afraid of.

Paul, toss your views onto the list, and make your case, on any issue that
you think is valuable for citizens of this community to contemplate.  if
for some reason i take offense, i can always click 'delete.'

sorry for the long one.
Mark Santow
203 Rochambeau Avenue
> Hi all:
> Here's a message in FAVOR of politics on the list, which is what we
> do on this list anyhow.
>
> Aristotle is often cited as noting that what makes us human is the
> ability to form groups to improve our society, to pursue the common
> good in more modern parlance.  I see this list doing exactly that in
> most of its messages: some people want to improve the community by
> allowing all night parking, some want to improve it by banning same.
> Both are being political in the broad sense of the word.  And that's
> exactly what we should do, as long as it's civil.  Some want to
> prevent this or that, I want to somehow get people to not block their
> sidewalks with snow, thick hedges, piles of dirt, etc.  All of these
> sentiments presume that at some point a community is going to make a
> decision that will bind on all of us -- that's politics, and that's
> what we're doing, in the best sense of the word.
>
> Many folks unfortunately equate "politics" not with what I've noted
> above but with partisanship and political parties.  I'm arguing for a
> broader definition above, and I'm arguing that we should welcome this
> opportunity to use the list to improve the community.  But even if
> it's partisan politics.  So what?  That's part of improving
> communities, even when we disagree about parties and candidates.
> It's often been said that our modern society isolates us -- remember
> Pursuit of Loneliness? -- and when that happens we have too few
> opportunities to communicate about things that matter.  Candidates
> and elections matter, and we're often, unless you try very hard, the
> prisoner of a few media outlets and slick consultants when it comes
> to learning about issues and candidates.  Iowa's caucuses are
> interesting because people actually meet and talk with each other.
> Neat.  So if this list can help us exchange views on candidates and
> issues, I'm all for it, even if we cross over a line into (gasp)
> partisanship.
>
> Gather ye signatures while ye may!  Let the list flourish!
>
> Bob Trudeau
>
> _______________________________________________
> Summit mailing list
> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
> http://mail.sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
>

Our newly released book "Social Security and the Middle-Class Squeeze Fact
and Fiction About America’s Entitlement Programs," by Drs. Mark and
Leonard Santow, can be found at
http://www.greenwood.com/books/bookdetail.asp?sku=C8881

“Skepticism, contrary to widespread error, makes
everything possible again: ethics, morality, knowledge,faith, society, and
criticism, but differently – a few sizes smaller, more tentative, more
revisable and more capable of learning and thus more curious, more open to
the unexpected.”

Ulrich Beck, Democracy Without Enemies (1998)

“Better the occasional faults of a Government
 that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a
Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.”

Franklin Roosevelt, Speech at Philadelphia’s Franklin Field (1936)