One of the interesting meta-phenomenon that happens any time you give advice on the internet is that the advice ends up heard by people who need to hear it... but also by people who don't need to hear it.
Like if I said "Be more assertive!" maybe that's great advice for some people who are tragically passive, but terrible advice for people who are already overconfident douchebags. And this can broadly be applied to most advice, because very few things are truly universal.
All of that to say that I've seen some good discussion in the comments (here and places like reddit/twitter) but also some folks who just don't realize they're not the target audience.
I used to agree with this take. I'm not sure I do anymore.
What does "go out and do it" mean in practice? You give the example of scheduling a meeting with your local elected officials. Other examples might include volunteering, protesting, maybe even running for office yourself. But meeting with a local official without having some sort of institutional support/movement behind you is, in my eyes, largely useless. You need to be part of a movement to have real political power.
These movements are formed largely by existing institutional players (lobbyists, interest groups, etc.) - but also on social media platforms like Reddit or TikTok.
Going out to protest is definitely "better" than laying in bed watching Jubilee. But l feel like "traditional" forms of political action have never felt so ineffectual in a national polarized environment.
The stories in the book talk about lone people who start and spearhead real local movements. Hersh argues that in many localities power is easier to grab than one would expect.
My personal take though is that that's literally just a personality type. You need an entrepreneurial personality to do that with good networking skills you cant just start telling people "vote for me I'm gonna tank your mortgage investment but it'll be ok because your kids can move out".
Some people just don't have the sauce to be politicians.
Yeah, the "just do local politics" argument fell flat for me once I learned what people are actually asking is "just do sales and networking". That's totally not my skillset, but it's the only thing that seems to be of any value besides just giving money. Candidates want door-knockers. Activist orgs want people to talk to elected officials. Just going to city council meetings to passionately talk about an issue usually gets people labelled as hacks who aren't worth listening to (NIMBYs are the obvious example here). It feels like local politics is built by and for social butterflies and I'm just not that kind of person.
On a related note, I feel the Venn diagram of Substackers interested in politics and IRL sales and networking skills is pretty low.
This is so true! Same with talking to your political representatives. Less people do that then everyone thinks. If you call/write them, they know you care enough to vote.
This is not true. It's the same as voting. You're making your voice heard. It's not just about you. If you and four dozen other people in your neighborhood all do the same thing, all of sudden, your local political official is hearing an overwhelming wave of support for your issue. And if you're the only one who supports your idea and no one else is advocating for it, then it doesn't happen and that's democracy.
The epitome of this is a lot of ppl going nuts and dooming about NYC election - I’m sorry you don’t even live here, why do you go down the rabbit hole of “Mamdani must be a Nazi” and doom and get angry… and I say this as someone who’s not a Mamdani fan at all living in nyc…
Every time this issue comes up I want to remind people of the same thing, this could just be reinventing the 90-9-1 distribution but moralizing it to be a flaw with the 9.
Which is to say, 90% are passive, 9% are commentators, and 1% are actors. It's just going to naturally happen that 9% of the populace will comment on politics a lot without actually taking much political action, this normally describes internet communities as being mostly lurkers and commentators with only a few influencers but that's relevant because political action is like it or not an influencer brand management game. You gain politicial power the way a social media influencer gains followers, you apply the same skills, and there's nothing wrong with not being charismatic enough to be a celebrity.
Wealth may not be a fixed pie but power and influence is, it's just going to inherently happen that the 1% of most charismatic people with more friends and brand management skills will inherently be more politically impactful than the 9% of people who have the intellect the comment on their actions but not the charisma or networking skills to join or counter them.
This really should not reflect badly on political hobbyists because they are bound to exist, not by any personal flaw but by mathematics of power and influence. In order for there to be leaders there inherently need to be followers. Anyone can be a leader but lot everyone can be a leader.
believing something is preferable to doing something because the former is about you, and the latter is about everyone else. It’s knowledge in place of action, in avoidance of action. And it’s not good
There are some things people.can do online, but it's not what they spend their time doing.
- We should donate to low-level close general election races, not donor-saturated marquee races or expressive primaries.
- We should spend our time providing basic information to cross-pressured or low-information voters, not building a utopian society with copartisan politics obsessives.
- We should methodologically scan through all relevant polling information, constantly testing our assumptions about how the issues are presented, what voters care about in the first place, and who voters really are. If polling comes to you on social media, it's already overrated.
Phenomenal call out. You're absolutely right. Here's hoping that you encourage at least a few people to stop screaming at people on the internet and instead spend that time writing an email to their local representative.
For the first time ever, I think you’re entirely wrong on this point. In fact, dangerously so.
The kinds of people I want involved in politics are precisely the kinds of people who wouldn’t believe “politics is all about power”.
I’d much prefer people who think of politics first and foremost as a tool for doing good, or for enacting better policy, or for helping us live freer and more prosperous lives, or for improving our ability to get along nonviolently, or for getting us all hotter pizza at local dominos.
But definitely and most certainly not people who are chiefly and primarily interested in power.
I think you might want to read the politics is about power book. I don't think the point is power for its own sake. The point is that your goal should be to have the power to to make the improvements you want to see in the world. Power is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
What mechanism will give us freer and more prosperous lives other than "people using power to enact change"?
All purposeful change comes from wielding power. This is true of virtuous changes you like and unvirtuous changes you dislike. But fundamentally the act of politics is the act of trying to take power of existing systems and institutions and to use that power to enact your vision for how society should be.
That's the point of politics - not emotive messaging, not content consumption, not making your voice heard. When I say 'politics is about power', it means that politics is about enacting real change in the real world and not about making yourself feel good.
I don't think he's talking about belief. I think he's saying its a fact that Politics is about power, if you are an effective politician you win power. Then you bring change. The desire to bring change is in itself a desire for the power to bring that change.
Electing a mayor who wants to do good will help because the mayor has power to do good.
As the great Kahless said - “Great men do not seek power, they have it thrust upon them”. We should be weary of those that seek power directly rather than seeing it as a means to some other ends.
I understand this instinct - it's absolutely the case that many people who seek power are amoral people with selfish intentions.
But precisely because that's the case, virtuous people MUST also seek power. Those amoral people aren't going to stop seeking power because you and I chide them about how amoral they are. If every virtuous person stops seeking power and passively waits for it to be thrust upon them, we'll end up in an equilibrium where amoral sociopaths hold 100% of power because they're the only ones seeking it.
One thing about politics is that it's a lot easier to suit up and get out on the field than it is in sports. I've been active in local Dem politics for more than a decade, and have had a number of opportunities to get on the field. I'm not interested in running for office, but writing platform amendments that get adopted or legislation that gets passed -- these are things an ordinary lay person with an idea can do. You do have to listen more than you talk, and understand that no one is going to put you in charge on the first day you show up.
Lots of people find fandom more satisfying: that coach doesn't have any idea what he's doing, if only I was there we'd be winning this thing.
Granted, this is easier in a low density blue city in the West. Structures are more transparent, and we're not underrepresented. (10k people per state house rep, 20k per state senator, means they come to your house and talk to you. And if they've seen you twice, they'll come say hi when you're out having lunch. Obviously, in California or especially Texas this kind of thing just isn't possible.)
I am not sure in which side of the spectrum I am. On the one hand... yeah, i am pretty isolated from the actual RL politics stuff. But on the other, I really started disliking discussing politics publicly because those discussions just lead into nowhere. One book that really started inspiring me tho was Recoding America and Abundance because they offer an excellent view into the deeps of the system of the goverment that they kinda enspire me to become employed by the government so I can bring maybe a bit of change from the inside and help delivering high quality politics while circumventing pitfalls that modern politics often stumbles into.
Although i am german and actually still go to school lol.
One of the interesting meta-phenomenon that happens any time you give advice on the internet is that the advice ends up heard by people who need to hear it... but also by people who don't need to hear it.
Like if I said "Be more assertive!" maybe that's great advice for some people who are tragically passive, but terrible advice for people who are already overconfident douchebags. And this can broadly be applied to most advice, because very few things are truly universal.
All of that to say that I've seen some good discussion in the comments (here and places like reddit/twitter) but also some folks who just don't realize they're not the target audience.
I used to agree with this take. I'm not sure I do anymore.
What does "go out and do it" mean in practice? You give the example of scheduling a meeting with your local elected officials. Other examples might include volunteering, protesting, maybe even running for office yourself. But meeting with a local official without having some sort of institutional support/movement behind you is, in my eyes, largely useless. You need to be part of a movement to have real political power.
These movements are formed largely by existing institutional players (lobbyists, interest groups, etc.) - but also on social media platforms like Reddit or TikTok.
Going out to protest is definitely "better" than laying in bed watching Jubilee. But l feel like "traditional" forms of political action have never felt so ineffectual in a national polarized environment.
The stories in the book talk about lone people who start and spearhead real local movements. Hersh argues that in many localities power is easier to grab than one would expect.
My personal take though is that that's literally just a personality type. You need an entrepreneurial personality to do that with good networking skills you cant just start telling people "vote for me I'm gonna tank your mortgage investment but it'll be ok because your kids can move out".
Some people just don't have the sauce to be politicians.
Yeah, the "just do local politics" argument fell flat for me once I learned what people are actually asking is "just do sales and networking". That's totally not my skillset, but it's the only thing that seems to be of any value besides just giving money. Candidates want door-knockers. Activist orgs want people to talk to elected officials. Just going to city council meetings to passionately talk about an issue usually gets people labelled as hacks who aren't worth listening to (NIMBYs are the obvious example here). It feels like local politics is built by and for social butterflies and I'm just not that kind of person.
On a related note, I feel the Venn diagram of Substackers interested in politics and IRL sales and networking skills is pretty low.
This is so true! Same with talking to your political representatives. Less people do that then everyone thinks. If you call/write them, they know you care enough to vote.
This is not true. It's the same as voting. You're making your voice heard. It's not just about you. If you and four dozen other people in your neighborhood all do the same thing, all of sudden, your local political official is hearing an overwhelming wave of support for your issue. And if you're the only one who supports your idea and no one else is advocating for it, then it doesn't happen and that's democracy.
The epitome of this is a lot of ppl going nuts and dooming about NYC election - I’m sorry you don’t even live here, why do you go down the rabbit hole of “Mamdani must be a Nazi” and doom and get angry… and I say this as someone who’s not a Mamdani fan at all living in nyc…
Every time this issue comes up I want to remind people of the same thing, this could just be reinventing the 90-9-1 distribution but moralizing it to be a flaw with the 9.
Which is to say, 90% are passive, 9% are commentators, and 1% are actors. It's just going to naturally happen that 9% of the populace will comment on politics a lot without actually taking much political action, this normally describes internet communities as being mostly lurkers and commentators with only a few influencers but that's relevant because political action is like it or not an influencer brand management game. You gain politicial power the way a social media influencer gains followers, you apply the same skills, and there's nothing wrong with not being charismatic enough to be a celebrity.
Wealth may not be a fixed pie but power and influence is, it's just going to inherently happen that the 1% of most charismatic people with more friends and brand management skills will inherently be more politically impactful than the 9% of people who have the intellect the comment on their actions but not the charisma or networking skills to join or counter them.
This really should not reflect badly on political hobbyists because they are bound to exist, not by any personal flaw but by mathematics of power and influence. In order for there to be leaders there inherently need to be followers. Anyone can be a leader but lot everyone can be a leader.
believing something is preferable to doing something because the former is about you, and the latter is about everyone else. It’s knowledge in place of action, in avoidance of action. And it’s not good
There are some things people.can do online, but it's not what they spend their time doing.
- We should donate to low-level close general election races, not donor-saturated marquee races or expressive primaries.
- We should spend our time providing basic information to cross-pressured or low-information voters, not building a utopian society with copartisan politics obsessives.
- We should methodologically scan through all relevant polling information, constantly testing our assumptions about how the issues are presented, what voters care about in the first place, and who voters really are. If polling comes to you on social media, it's already overrated.
Phenomenal call out. You're absolutely right. Here's hoping that you encourage at least a few people to stop screaming at people on the internet and instead spend that time writing an email to their local representative.
For the first time ever, I think you’re entirely wrong on this point. In fact, dangerously so.
The kinds of people I want involved in politics are precisely the kinds of people who wouldn’t believe “politics is all about power”.
I’d much prefer people who think of politics first and foremost as a tool for doing good, or for enacting better policy, or for helping us live freer and more prosperous lives, or for improving our ability to get along nonviolently, or for getting us all hotter pizza at local dominos.
But definitely and most certainly not people who are chiefly and primarily interested in power.
I think you might want to read the politics is about power book. I don't think the point is power for its own sake. The point is that your goal should be to have the power to to make the improvements you want to see in the world. Power is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
What mechanism will give us freer and more prosperous lives other than "people using power to enact change"?
All purposeful change comes from wielding power. This is true of virtuous changes you like and unvirtuous changes you dislike. But fundamentally the act of politics is the act of trying to take power of existing systems and institutions and to use that power to enact your vision for how society should be.
That's the point of politics - not emotive messaging, not content consumption, not making your voice heard. When I say 'politics is about power', it means that politics is about enacting real change in the real world and not about making yourself feel good.
I don't think he's talking about belief. I think he's saying its a fact that Politics is about power, if you are an effective politician you win power. Then you bring change. The desire to bring change is in itself a desire for the power to bring that change.
Electing a mayor who wants to do good will help because the mayor has power to do good.
As the great Kahless said - “Great men do not seek power, they have it thrust upon them”. We should be weary of those that seek power directly rather than seeing it as a means to some other ends.
I understand this instinct - it's absolutely the case that many people who seek power are amoral people with selfish intentions.
But precisely because that's the case, virtuous people MUST also seek power. Those amoral people aren't going to stop seeking power because you and I chide them about how amoral they are. If every virtuous person stops seeking power and passively waits for it to be thrust upon them, we'll end up in an equilibrium where amoral sociopaths hold 100% of power because they're the only ones seeking it.
I wish I could like this a dozen times.
One thing about politics is that it's a lot easier to suit up and get out on the field than it is in sports. I've been active in local Dem politics for more than a decade, and have had a number of opportunities to get on the field. I'm not interested in running for office, but writing platform amendments that get adopted or legislation that gets passed -- these are things an ordinary lay person with an idea can do. You do have to listen more than you talk, and understand that no one is going to put you in charge on the first day you show up.
Lots of people find fandom more satisfying: that coach doesn't have any idea what he's doing, if only I was there we'd be winning this thing.
Granted, this is easier in a low density blue city in the West. Structures are more transparent, and we're not underrepresented. (10k people per state house rep, 20k per state senator, means they come to your house and talk to you. And if they've seen you twice, they'll come say hi when you're out having lunch. Obviously, in California or especially Texas this kind of thing just isn't possible.)
I am not sure in which side of the spectrum I am. On the one hand... yeah, i am pretty isolated from the actual RL politics stuff. But on the other, I really started disliking discussing politics publicly because those discussions just lead into nowhere. One book that really started inspiring me tho was Recoding America and Abundance because they offer an excellent view into the deeps of the system of the goverment that they kinda enspire me to become employed by the government so I can bring maybe a bit of change from the inside and help delivering high quality politics while circumventing pitfalls that modern politics often stumbles into.
Although i am german and actually still go to school lol.