hope*

After a couple of failed attempts to post my reactions to the the articles linked below, I think I've found the key distinction that the community organizer issue highlights. My earlier efforts just weren't coming together in any meaningful way; there wasn't a unifying theme. I knew that, on the one hand, I find idea of effective political action on the neighborhood level very compelling. I am inclined to admire the ability to actually harness and use power in such an unlikely setting to get things done. I was partly just awed by the possibility - I mean, I don't even know any of the people who live in this same apartment building as I do. On the other hand, if someone knocked on my door and asked me to help pay him to organize my community, trust would not be very high on the list of my feelings. Power corrupts, but power and a salary? And there are other reasons to be wary- the very democratic (in the sense of mob rule) tactic of using strength of numbers to demand what the majority wants and the self-interest principle on which they appear to operate. (I have to make a side note here because I'm not against self interest as such. I think that the problem is immediate or short term self interest which disregards moral and societal law. My argument would be that those who appear to act out of self interest actually endanger themselves by tearing down the structures which protect them).
I alluded to a vital distinction at the beginning of this post and I will now attempt to describe it. Active participation in political and social life is good and praiseworthy, especially among one's immediate neighbors where you are personally known and can influence others to become better people. The departure from this wholesome and natural sociopolitical norm has led to a widespread disinterest toward modern politics. Today's typical "activist" bears little relation to the laudable politically active citizen. There is very little one can do as a part of the federal - or even state - government to inspire internal change but instead of taking this as the limitation it naturally is, politicians (by the mandate of activists) try to force the issue by legislating external change. Instead of trying to convince our fellow citizens to look out for their own safety we pass laws against driving without a seat belt (and of course make those who do pay a fine). It's easier to pass laws against smoking in public buildings than to help someone you know quit (and of course make smokers pay extra taxes). If you think that your fellow man is uncharitable, just ask the government to take money from everyone by threat of force and give it to the deserving (and of course.. wait, hold on...).
My conclusion is that community organizing brings the perverse politics of power and coercive change down to a local level. In the general absence of local political activity this can appear to be the missing personal participation in public discourse but, being built on corrupt foundations it cannot bring about any real good. What is needed instead is a genuine (stay with me here) self interest in the common good. OK, no, I can't really prove that there is any justification for that apparent perversion of language. I think there is, but despite the facts that I don't seem to have covered half of what I set out to say and that this post has been in draft status for a good couple of days now, further progress is not immediately forthcoming. Besides, I've is already gotten pretty epic for me. I will, therefore have to hope *that this makes some sense(minus the final paragraph) and has some value as it stands. More as the story develops.