Observing the state of politics today vexes my spirit. The polarization, the vitriol that spills out of social media and into the real world, and the lost art of empathy and compromise serve the world’s democracies poorly. There is no lack of explanations or reasons for our state of affairs: failure of the neoliberal order, cultural backlash (and the backlash to the backlash), a corporate media environment that focuses on conflict and outrage to drive ratings, identity politics, and social media are popularly labeled culprits. Each ideological side has their favorite root cause. Most likely, several converging factors got us here. Eitan Hersh, a political science professor teaching at Tufts University, posits a new way to frame a phenomenon that exacerbates our already charged political climate: political hobbyism.
Eitan Hersh (first name pronounced Ay-Tawn) describes political hobbyism in his most recent book, Politics is for Power: How to Move Beyond Political Hobbyism, Take Action, and Make Real Change. When it came out, I saw many positive reviews in blogs and magazines I follow, and even mentions in my favorite podcasts, so I had to read it for myself to see what the buzz was about. Reading it helped me focus on my own political behavior and is motivating me to do better.
Hersh begins the book by explaining that after conducting a study on American political engagement, many of his subjects described their involvement in politics, the way sports fans might describe how they participate in their favorite game. His research concluded that a third of the country spends one to two hours on news consumption every day and limit their active engagement with politics to sharing and commenting about it on social media. Analyzing the way these self-reported politically engaged (mostly white college-educated males) interact with politics, the analogy to the sports fan or hobbyist became apparent. Sports enthusiasts do not play their game in the field, but watch it on tv, memorize every statistic, follow the personal drama of their favorite players, root for their side, and trash talk the opposing team. Is this not what we are seeing played out in the world of politics?
Political hobbyism explains another often-quoted study that asked Americans if they would be upset if their son or daughter married someone of the other political party, and 27 percent of Republicans and 20 percent of Democrats said they’d be upset. Back in 1960, only 5 percent in either party said that. Hersh argues that political hobbyism is to blame for the dramatic shift. He conducted his own study in 2016 asking Republicans and Democrats, Red Sox and Yankees fans, and Phillies and Mets fans how they would feel if their kid married a fan of their rivals. The results of his study showed that Red Sox and Yankees fans whine about their kids marrying their rivals almost as much as Democrats and Republicans do. It is reasonable to conclude that Democrat and Republican survey respondents were just trash-talking, and deep down, do not really detest their partisan opposite. Personally, I hope his interpretation is more accurate than the more sinister one.
Hersh notes that actual political participation involves working in groups with goals and strategies to influence the government. In no way does mere news consumption and online slacktivism count as political engagement. Hearing this may be hard to hear for many of my readers. It certainly describes the majority of my own political behavior since leaving my position as a professional, paid activist.
Using Hersh’s description of a political hobbyist, a simple test can be used to detect one. All one has to do is ask a person who claims to be politically engaged how you can become involved in your community on an issue that you care about. A news junkie will tell you all the latest drama happening in D.C. but can rarely impart knowledge that can help you make an impact in your community.
Hersh’s book describes forces that drive people out of political engagement and into hobbyism. A change in how we get our news plays a significant role. We once got our news from local newspapers, now get our news from national online outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post. Being up to date with International and National news events helps us win trivia games, but does nothing to help us understand how power flows in our communities and how we can plug ourselves into it so we can make a difference.
Another force that pushes one away from actual political engagement is the structural and legal changes in political parties that resulted in them being gutted of any real power. The precinct committeeman was once a strong man in his community who people went to if they needed jobs or to have other social/economic needs met. Primaries were internal party affairs before 1972, which gave local party activists real power at both the local and national levels. These days, we face the contradiction of intense partisanship, yet hallowed out political parties. When local political parties are weak and ineffectual, there is less motivation for one to become active in them.
I see the idea of political hobbyism playing out in protests and other forms of direct action as well. I think the concept explains why many, mostly white, “political activists” act in ways that turn away potential allies. Two examples, just from August, comes to my mind when I think about stories of activists undermining their own cause. One is when protesters marched through a Seattle neighborhood at night while shining bright flashlights into local resident’s homes. A second is when over 100 protesters harassed diners of D.C. restaurants, demanding that the customers show signs of support, and being shouted at if they refused.
Why would someone with strong convictions antagonize those who might otherwise be sympathetic? It makes little political sense. The standard explanation from the social sciences is that most likely demonstrators who act irrationally, are participating in a concept of cathartic protest. Protests are often labeled either cathartic, strategic, or mixed. A Strategic protest is one tactic an organization can use to put pressure on a target who can enact an achievable demand. Trained organizers will tell you that that protests should not be considered a strategy in itself, but only a tactic within a broader strategy. Cathartic protests allow aggrieved individuals a chance to express their rage and frustration—but hold no strategic value. Protests can also be both cathartic and tactical, allowing individuals a chance to express themselves while providing an opportunity for allies to find them and be recruited.
With the understanding of political hobbyism, I see how some behavior observed in a few protests would be considered sports hooliganism if they were occurring in the context of the sports world. Riots after large sporting events are common, team chants are popular, and fights between opposing fans often make the news. However, there is a fundamental difference between sports and politics. Sports entertainment is about spectacle and theater. Politics is about growing one’s power to influence governmental policies. Unlike sports, democracy cannot function if nearly everyone is a spectator. And as anyone who has been forced to cover committee hearings can tell you (I had a stint as a legislative aid), real politics is deadly dull to watch. I can attest that real debates happen all the time, usually on the local and state level. Still, few watch them because they are policy heavy—which is not interesting to those only engaging in politics for fun.
Hersh argues in his book that those who seek politainment, do not reward politicians for their statecraft. Instead, political hobbyists prize politicians who act outrageously, grandstands, or lobs insults during hearings or debates. Many politicians hope that their poor behavior goes viral so they can then rake in donations based on their crass but entertaining performance.
Not in his book, but a fitting example of what Hersh is talking about is the 2009 Rep. Joe Wilson incident. I recall vividly watching President Obama present a major health-care speech to Congress when Joe Wilson, a Republican representative from South Carolina, heckled the President, shouting, ‘You lie!’ It was the first time on record a congressman interrupted a president during such an address. It was shocking since, historically, such a lack of decorum would have had grave consequences for a sitting representative. However, Rep. Wilson collected over $1 million in campaign contributions after his outburst. The incident is now seen as a turning point in the degrading of political norms.
I have wondered who those people are who donated to Rep. Wilson, rewarding him for his disrespectful behavior. Based on the understanding of political hobbyism, I would now argue that they most likely belong to the tribe of political hobbyists (given the time, to be fair, many were also likely tea-party activists).
Hersh argues that those who seek entertainment form their politics also makes compromise harder and encourages extremism. Someone serious about making progress on an issue they care about knows in their bones that slow and steady compromise is the way to get there. If one follows politics for the fun of it, then they seek outrage and conflict and reward politicians who give it to them. That is why hobbyists are usually ideological purists. It is worth noting that billionaire donors, too, can be political hobbyists. They can incentivize politicians to take ever more extreme, uncompromising positions with the promise of large donations.
If we were really interested in magnifying our power to exert change in our community, we would be trying to influence other people—not spending our time following celebrity politicians. Being a political influencer requires a skillset grounded in empathy and understanding. To change someone’s mind, one has to discover what the other person values, what they are upset about, and what makes them happy. It requires a level of mutual trust. Hobbyists (especially online) focus on being provocative and outraged with the goal of instant gratification. Name-calling and incivility are rewarded online and on opinion-based news networks because consumers crave it.
I think Eitan Hersch makes a valuable contribution by distinguishing between political hobbyists and those engaged in politics for power. Ultimately, politics is not a game. Public policies affect our lives today and have consequences for generations to come. Politics can mean the difference between life and death for some—and certainly affects the quality of life for all of us. Hersh gave inspiring examples of ordinary citizens who found a way to magnify the power of their vote by influencing others. His telling of the story of a 90+-year-old Ukrainian immigrant, who through his service to others and personal kindness, influences the vote of 1,000 some people in his senior living complex–thus earning him the friendship of powerful politicians—is worth the price of the book, alone. The stories Hersh tells of genuine political engagement point the way for all of us to get past the civic mess we are in.
When it comes down to it, leisure time is finite. If one spends two hours a day consuming political gossip and the ups and downs of the political horse-races, there is no time left for the important matters going on in one’s community—where one can have an impact.
Engaging in politics is hard. Unlike political hobbyism, actual doing the business of politics could have a cost. It requires taking positions that affect you and your neighbors, may be unpopular, and likely, less fun. It could mean fighting for higher taxes to fund an initiative you believe in. It could mean advocating for more subsidized housing in your community to help the less fortunate (which middle-class residents, regardless of how progressive they say they might be, often oppose.) It also requires that you make yourself more vulnerable and empathetic so that you can reach and influence others.
I often think about the story of Harvey Milk, who helped the LGBTQ community make great strides. The most powerful tactic he employed was requiring his supporters to come out to their family and friends. It is much easier for opponents of LGBTQ rights to deny civil protections to an abstract group of people they do not know. It is harder to deny the humanity of one’s family, co-workers, and neighbors. Milk and his organization were able to make progress because they did not demonize their opponents or call them names. Instead, he gave them the opportunity to prove that they were decent human beings. That is how lasting political progress is made.
I am going to end this essay by listing links to organizations in Indiana dedicated to making the State a better place. Many of them are organizations that I have directly worked with and know personally, the great work they do. I know the list is incomplete and would love it if you were to add your suggestions in the comments. The list is in alphabetical order, and therefore not ranked in any way.
Resources
The CAC Mission: To initiate, facilitate and coordinate citizen action directed to improving the quality of life of all inhabitants of the State of Indiana through principled advocacy of public policies to preserve democracy, conserve natural resources, protect the environment, and provide affordable access to essential human service
Common Cause Indiana is a nonpartisan organization that works to promote open, ethical, and accountable government for every Hoosier. Common Cause has taken their fight up to the Supreme Court, and anyone interested in democracy and good governance would do well to join their efforts.
The Hoosier Environmental Council is the voice of the people for the environment in Indiana — the organization with the passion and the plan to tackle our environmental challenges and help make our state a healthier, better place to live and do business.
RJA’s mission is an alliance of organizations working to create change on racial justice issues across the state. We focus on issue campaigns for criminal justice, immigration, and voting rights
The Indianapolis Urban League’s mission is to assist African-Americans, other minorities, and disadvantaged individuals to achieve social and economic equality.
Indy10 Black Lives Matter
An organization advocating for Black lives.
The League is proud to be nonpartisan, neither supporting nor opposing candidates or political parties at any level of government, but always working on vital issues of concern to members and the public.
Moms Demand Action is a grassroots movement of Americans fighting for public safety measures that can protect people from gun violence.
Political Parties
