It was an awesome book. But why do you call what Hunter did a hobby, he published influential news articles and then wrote a book about it.?
If you’re interested, NPR’s “On the Media” had a great interview with Eitan Hersh last week. The episode name is “Family Feud”, it’s the second story:
https://www.npr.org/podcasts/452538775/on-the-media
I found myself feeling both guilty for not participating more in my local government - my most involved has been going to some local zoning board meetings and voting in local elections. On the other hand, for people I know who are despondent about how terrible things are and how powerless they are, this is a great starting resource to get people thinking about what they can actually DO.
Glad you posted this - I’ve been thinking about it since I heard the interview (because it’s a good summary of P&R), but wasn’t sure where to drop it. Perhaps the author comes across differently in a discussion than he does in a single article.
The trend of ‘Politics as a Hobby’ seems like a natural consequence of a significant increase in the standard of living for many people over the last century, and the way that technology has led to a proliferation of information that is available inside the home.
It’s tough to motivate people to get out on the streets and protest, or to volunteer at a local advocacy group, when they are not reliant on political change for their standard of living and every form of political opinion, discourse, and discussion is available without leaving the house.
Is there anything inherently wrong in reading about politics? As others have noted, of course not, as it usually indicates an ability to think about the welfare of other people and other things beyond yourself.
I do agree with the author that more engagement is needed, that because of the insulated upbringing of most college-educated white males we don’t know when is the time to stop reading articles about something that angers you and to start actually doing something. What does that involve? If you don’t have any experience in it, it’s difficult to know what to do, and that’s where the more activist types should be reaching out and trying to get the hobbyists involved.
Eh, they are though. It’s just that most people can’t take the time off to do it. I agree on the latter part though.
For me, the local/state is a foregone conclusion each year. it might impact me more but I already know which way it’s going to go every election. My vote doesn’t count for the national stuff, but at least there’s a chance of Democrats winning the presidency or the House and limiting some of the damage.
Not to say I don’t pay any attention to local politics and issues, it’s just that it plays out the same every election.
But there are a host of issues that are handled by your local zoning board or school board or PTA or community planning council or local business association that aren’t particularly partisan but can have a huge impact on your community. There are a host of volunteer organizations doing activism based on issues. They lobby sitting officials for policy changes or funding. A bicycle advocacy group in San Diego has, for instance, been very successful over the last 5 years in advocating for major changes to street signage and bike lane construction. Phone banking or working on a campaign for a local official isn’t the only kind of activism, or even the most important kind.
I think the author of the article is on the right track, but using the wrong metaphor. It’s perfectly fine to have “politics as a hobby” because that simply means you’re paying more attention to political news, ideas and debates than the average person, and thus are more likely to make an informed decision. The problem is that too many Americans are poorly informed about politics, or remain willfully ignorant on politics, but want to be involved because it’s become so mainstream, and thus we have the real problem : “Politics as a Sport”.
In the past three decades or so, thanks largely to the influence of talk radio ('90’s), 24/7 news channels ('00’s) and social media ('10’s) we now have millions of “armchair politicians” who, just like fans at a sporting event, may not understand or even want to learn the intricacies of how politics works, they just want their “team” to score points and WIN. Gone is the idea that we need to work together to achieve solutions that work for everyone through compromise and common sense. Instead, Democrats could propose legislation that would declare the sky to be officially blue, and Republicans would howl in rage and initiate a week-long news cycle insisting Democrats were crazy and dangerous because the sky is quite obviously red.
I wish MORE people would take up politics as a hobby and actually go out and learn a few things, as that way they would understand the complete clusterfuck America has put itself into and how there may no longer be a way out at this point, no matter who wins in 2020.
To say that the people who view politics as a sport, posting their inane shit on social media and listening to Fox News or CNN non-stop for talking points they can regurgitate for the “Win” online, are people who have politics as a “hobby”, is like saying people who only play Candy Crush on their phone have video games as a “hobby”.
This is definitely the problem. I’ve even seen people say “I voted for my team” as an excuse for Trump.
Motherfucker this isn’t the Cubs vs the Yankees.
speaking of politics as a sport:
The problem is though complaining people are engaged and talking about politics but not say walking to a capital packing large guns and armor to threaten lawmakers, which is definitely more than talking right, misses the actual point.
The sports comparison is a lot more relevant than whether or not someone chooses to be an activist.
I’d call it politics as content media. I can’t think of another industry that puts out as much clickbait for as many people as national politics. No matter which side I want to back, I’ll have no problem finding and consuming as many memes and opinion pieces as I can stand.
Since it’s so easy to find political content, it’s the first thing I go looking for on my phone when I’m bored. Unlike, say, Dev diaries or game reviews, I’m guaranteed to find a breaking article or blog post morning, noon, and night. That first article is likely to leave me feeling positively or negatively agitated, which will carry me on to the next piece. Almost all the content is filler, but I’ve consumed so much that I have a pretty developed sense of what sort of arguments and attacks I’ll enjoy the most, making it easy to cruise on autopilot.
Hobby is too strong a word to describe this habit. I’m not reading this stuff to get better at something. I’m reading it because it’s cheap, prevalent, and titillating and I often won’t find something better to do with my time.
Well it helps that foreign governments also do it. And private citizens.
If you want to advertise some magical dietary supplement, you need to run an ad campaign and most people will ignore it. You might get a really gullible mark to say something on Facebook.
If you want to drop negative political messages about a person you have PACs, Parties, private citizens, foreign governments, private corporations, politicians, news agencies…
A quote from Graeber and Wengrow’s The Dawn of Everything
Back in the 1930s, the anthropologist Gregory Bateson coined the term ‘schismogenesis’ to describe people’s tendency to define themselves against one another. Imagine two people getting into an argument about some minor political disagreement but, after an hour, ending up taking positions so intransigent that they find themselves on completely opposite sides of some ideological divide – even taking extreme positions they would never embrace under ordinary circumstances, just to show how much they completely reject the other’s points. They start out as moderate socialdemocrats of slightly different flavours; before a few heated hours are over, one has somehow become a Leninist, the other an advocate of the ideas of Milton Friedman.
Finally, proof that if you call someone a Nazi, it can indeed turn them into a Nazi. Same with Racist, etc.
It is definitely a phenomena; I’ve known some very smart people who were also brilliant anti-persuasive speakers. You get in a 5 minute chat with them about a topic and at the end you are like “I had not thought very much about this issue, but after talking with you I strongly believe the opposite of what you are saying.”
It is something I think we all have to struggle with, trying to be more persuasive and empathetic when communicating with people (or at least the people who aren’t completely brain rotted). I always thought this guy was a good role model:
He believes strongly in his cause, but at the same time he never gives up on persuading people, even those who are his enemies of who have completely opposite viewpoints.
And who is that person?
My guess is fictional character from The Expanse.
Anderson Dawes, leader of the OPA (a semi anarco-collectivist political group of different Belter faction)
from, yes, The Expanse
Whoa whoa whoa. Jared Harris is in The Expanse? Nobody told me that.
And in Foundation
And in Chernobyl.